[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 30 (Tuesday, February 14, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 8449-8523]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-2195]
[[Page 8449]]
Vol. 77
Tuesday,
No. 30
February 14, 2012
Part III
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical
Habitat for Nine Bexar County, TX, Invertebrates; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 77 , No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 8450]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2010-0091; 4500030114]
RIN 1018-AX11
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of
Critical Habitat for Nine Bexar County, TX, Invertebrates
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), designate
critical habitat for Rhadine exilis (ground beetle, no common name),
Rhadine infernalis (ground beetle, no common name), Helotes mold beetle
(Batrisodes venyivi), Cokendolpher Cave harvestman (Texella
cokendolpheri), Robber Baron Cave meshweaver (Cicurina baronia), Madla
Cave meshweaver (Cicurina madla), Braken Bat Cave meshweaver (Cicurina
venii), Government Canyon Bat Cave meshweaver (Cicurina vespera), and
Government Canyon Bat Cave spider (Neoleptoneta microps) under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). These species are
collectively known as the nine Bexar County invertebrates. In total,
approximately 4,216 acres (ac) (1,706 hectares (ha)) in Bexar County,
Texas, fall within the boundaries of the critical habitat designation.
Also, we announce a 12-month finding on a petition to revise critical
habitat designation by removing unit 13 from designation under the Act.
After review of all available scientific and commercial information, we
find that the petitioned action is not warranted at this time.
DATES: This rule becomes effective on March 15, 2012.
ADDRESSES: This final rule and the associated final economic analysis
are available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Comments
and materials received, as well as supporting documentation used in
preparing this final rule, are available for public inspection, by
appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Austin Ecological Services Field Office, 10711 Burnet
Road, Suite 200, Austin, TX 78758; telephone 512-450-0057; facsimile
512-490-0974.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Adam Zerrenner, Field Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Austin Ecological Services Field Office,
10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200, Austin, TX 78758; telephone 512-490-0057
x248; facsimile 512-490-0974. If you use a telecommunications device
for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS)
at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
It is our intent to discuss in this final rule only those topics
directly relevant to the development and designation of critical
habitat for the Rhadine exilis (ground beetle, no common name), Rhadine
infernalis (ground beetle, no common name), Helotes mold beetle,
Cokendolpher Cave harvestman, Robber Baron Cave meshweaver, Madla Cave
meshweaver, Braken Bat Cave meshweaver, Government Canyon Bat Cave
meshweaver, and Government Canyon Bat Cave spider under the Act (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). For more information on the biology and ecology
of the nine Bexar County invertebrates, refer to the final listing rule
published in the Federal Register on December 26, 2000 (65 FR 81419),
and to our September 2011 final recovery plan (Service 2011), which is
available from the Austin Ecological Services Field Office (see
ADDRESSES section). For information on the nine Bexar County
invertebrates' critical habitat, refer to the proposed rule to
designate critical habitat for the nine Bexar County invertebrates
published in the Federal Register on August 27, 2002 (67 FR 55063), the
final critical habitat designation published April 8, 2003 (68 FR
17155), and the proposed revised critical habitat designation published
on February 22, 2011 (76 FR 9872). Information on the associated draft
economic analysis for the February 22, 2011 (76 FR 9872), proposed rule
to designate revised critical habitat was published in the Federal
Register on August 2, 2011 (76 FR 46234).
We use the terms karst fauna regions (KFRs), karst zones, and karst
fauna areas (KFAs) in this document. The term ``karst'' refers to a
subterranean terrain that is formed by the slow dissolution of calcium
carbonate from limestone bedrock by mildly acidic groundwater. This
process creates numerous cave openings, cracks, fissures, fractures,
sinkholes, and bedrock resembling Swiss cheese.
Veni (1994, pp. 68-76) delineated six KFRs within Bexar County:
Stone Oak, University of Texas at San Antonio (UTSA), Helotes,
Government Canyon, Culebra Anticline, and Alamo Heights (Figure 1).
These KFRs are bounded by geological or geographical features that may
represent obstructions to the movement (on a geologic timescale) of
troglobites (small, cave-dwelling animals that have adapted to their
dark surroundings), which has resulted in the present-day distribution
of endemic (restricted to a given region) karst invertebrates in the
Bexar County area. The basis for these divisions is the lack of
continuity between caves, which may form complete barriers or
significant restrictions to migration of troglobites over modern or
geologic timescales. These discontinuities result from cave development
and the geologic history of the area.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 8451]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE12.000
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
The KFRs were analyzed by Veni (1994, pp. 72-73) using the then
current range of 19 troglobitic species, including the 9 Bexar County
invertebrates. The KFRs are important because they are used to
establish recovery criteria for individual species in the Bexar County
Karst Invertebrate Recovery Plan (Service 2011, pp. 17-26). To meet
those criteria, specified numbers of preserves of a given quality must
be protected within each KFR in which they occur.
Also, the six KFRs were delineated by Veni (2003, pp. 10-18) into
five karst zones that reflect the likelihood of finding a karst feature
that will provide habitat for the endangered invertebrates, based on
geology, distribution of known caves, distribution of cave fauna, and
primary factors that determine the presence, size, shape, and extent of
[[Page 8452]]
caves with respect to cave development. As described by Veni (2003, pp.
10-18), these five zones (Figure 1) are defined as:
Zone 1: Areas known to contain one or more of the nine Bexar County
invertebrates (areas where species are present).
Zone 2: Areas having a high probability of suitable habitat for the
invertebrates (areas that may contain one or more invertebrates, but
have not been fully surveyed).
Zone 3: Areas that probably do not contain the invertebrates
(because there is very little suitable karst habitat).
Zone 4: Areas that require further research, but are generally
equivalent to Zone 3, although they may include sections that could be
classified as Zone 2 or 5 (areas where less is known about the karst
structure than with Zone 3).
Zone 5: Areas that do not contain the nine Bexar County
invertebrates (areas with units of rock that do not contain karst
habitat).
A karst fauna area (Service 1994, p. 76) is a geographic area known
to support one or more locations of an endangered species. A KFA is
distinct in that it acts as a system that is separated from other KFAs
by geologic and hydrologic features and/or processes or distances that
create barriers to movement of water, contaminants, and troglobitic
fauna.
Previous Federal Actions
We published a proposed rule to list the nine Bexar County karst
invertebrate species as endangered in the Federal Register on December
30, 1998 (63 FR 71855). On November 1, 2000, the Center for Biological
Diversity filed a complaint against the Service alleging that we
exceeded our 1-year obligation to publish a final listing rule and make
a determination whether to designate critical habitat for the nine
Bexar County karst invertebrates. We published a final listing rule on
December 26, 2000 (65 FR 81419). In the final listing rule, we
determined that critical habitat designation was prudent. On August 27,
2002, we proposed that 25 units encompassing approximately 9,516 ac
(3,857 ha) in Bexar County, Texas, be designated as critical habitat
for the nine karst invertebrates (67 FR 55063). The final critical
habitat rule, designating approximately 1,063 ac (431 ha) in 22 units,
was published on April 8, 2003 (68 FR 17155).
On July 17, 2007, the Center for Biological Diversity, Citizens
Alliance for Smart Expansion, and Aquifer Guardians in Urban Areas
provided us with a 60-day notice of intent to sue on the final critical
habitat rule. On January 14, 2009, the plaintiffs (CBD v. FWS, case
number 1:09-cv-00031-LY) filed suit in Federal Court (Western District
of Texas), alleging that the Service failed to use the best available
science, and incorrectly made exclusions according to sections 3(5)(A)
and 4(b)(2) of the Act. On December 18, 2009, the parties filed a
settlement agreement where we agreed to submit a revised proposed
critical habitat determination for publication in the Federal Register
on or before February 7, 2011, and a final revised determination by
February 7, 2012. The proposed rule was submitted to the Federal
Register prior to the February 7, 2011, deadline, and it published on
February 22, 2011 (76 FR 9872). On August 2, 2011 (76 FR 46234), we
reopened the comment period and announced the availability of a draft
economic analysis, an amended required determinations section of the
proposal, and a public hearing to allow. This final rule is published
in accordance with the settlement agreement.
12-Month Finding
On July 8, 2010, we received a petition from Capital Foresight
Limited Partnership to revise designated critical habitat for Rhadine
exilis by removing Unit 13. The petitioner alleges that the original
specimens collected from Black Cat Cave were never positively
identified as R. exilis. They stated that another species of Rhadine
with a slender body form similar to R. exilis occurs in a cave a short
distance from Black Cat Cave, which is likely connected by mesocaverns
(small, human-inaccessible, interstitial spaces in karst limestone),
and that two species of Rhadine with similar body forms have never been
documented to occur in the same location. In addition, the petitioner
asserted that drinking water is leaking into Black Cat Cave and that
the habitat has been highly degraded by the Bulverde Road, rending the
area no longer suitable for conservation of the species. However,
information in our files at the time we received the petition indicated
that a species expert had identified the original specimen collected
from Black Cat Cave as R. exilis (T. Barr, pers. comm., 2010).
In our February 22, 2011 proposed rule (76 FR 9872), we issued a
90-day finding that the Capital Foresight Limited Partnership presented
substantial information indicating that revising critical habitat for
Rhadine exilis may be warranted. We initiated a review to determine if
revising critical habitat for R. exilis is warranted. During that
review, we received evidence that the cave entrance had been filled
with dirt and rocks, and a concrete structure had been placed over the
natural opening.
In addition, the species expert examined the original specimens and
stated, ``My preliminary conclusions are that the Black Cat Rhadine are
distinct from Rhadine exilis though closely related, but I want to
spend about six hours or so on a final evaluation'' (T. Barr, pers.
comm., 2011). Unfortunately, T. Barr died in May 2011, and his
collection was donated to the Carnegie Museum of Natural History. The
Texas Memorial Museum is working with the Carnegie Museum to locate,
obtain, and examine the specimens from Black Cat Cave, but this task
has not been accomplished to date.
The preliminary determination by the species expert (T. Barr) that
this was not Rhadine exilis casts some additional doubt on whether the
unit contains, or ever contained, the species. However, because the
specimens are not currently available for examination, we give
deference to the original identification of the species as Rhadine
exilis by the species expert, T. Barr.
It has been 24 years since this Rhadine has been found in the cave,
and nine surveys conducted since 2008 have not confirmed its presence.
In addition, the surface habitat has been further degraded since the
original specimens were collected. However, because of the cryptic
nature of the karst invertebrates, it often takes intensive survey
efforts to document a species' presence within a cave (Krejca and
Weckerly 2007, p. 286), and the lack of positive survey results does
not indicate with reasonable certainty that R. exilis is currently
absent in Black Cat Cave. In addition, many of the surveys were
conducted during either extreme drought or during temperature extremes,
when karst species recede into mesocaverns that have a more favorable
microclimate. Although the surface habitat has been degraded, Black Cat
Cave and the surrounding mesocaverns still contain the physical or
biological features essential to the conservation of the species. Even
though recent survey efforts have failed to detect the R. exilis in
Black Cat Cave, and the surface habitat has been degraded, we have
determined that Unit 13 still meets the definition of critical habitat,
as defined in section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act, by being occupied at the
time of listing, and currently containing the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of the species, which may
require special management considerations or protection. In addition,
the karst habitat within Unit
[[Page 8453]]
13 is needed to conserve R. exilis in the Stone Oak KFR.
At this time, we find that revising critical habitat by removing
Unit 13 is not warranted. It is therefore included in this final
designation. However, if at some future time further taxonomic studies
reveal that the specimens collected in Black Cat Cave were not Rhadine
exilis, or more intensive survey efforts do not reveal the species'
presence, then we will consider revising this critical habitat
designation. This document includes our 12-month finding on the
petition, as well as our final designation of critical habitat for the
nine Bexar County invertebrates, as provided in section 4(b)(3)(B) of
the Act.
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
We requested written comments from the public on the proposed
designation of critical habitat for the nine Bexar County invertebrates
during two comment periods. The first comment period associated with
the publication of the proposed rule (76 FR 9872) opened on February
22, 2011, and closed on April 25, 2011. We also requested comments on
the proposed critical habitat designation and associated draft economic
analysis during a comment period that opened August 2, 2011, and closed
on September 1, 2011 (76 FR 46234). We did receive three requests for a
public hearing. Therefore, we held a public hearing on August 17, 2011.
We also contacted appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies;
scientific organizations; and other interested parties and invited them
to comment on the proposed rule and draft economic analysis during
these comment periods.
During the first comment period, we received 35 comment letters
directly addressing the proposed critical habitat designation. During
the second comment period, we received 27 comment letters addressing
the proposed critical habitat designation or the draft economic
analysis. During the August 17, 2011, public hearing, one individual
made comments on the designation of critical habitat for the nine Bexar
County invertebrates. All substantive information provided during
comment periods has either been incorporated directly into this final
determination or addressed below. Comments we received are grouped into
seven general issues specifically relating to the proposed critical
habitat designation for the nine Bexar County invertebrates, and are
addressed in the following summary and incorporated into the final rule
as appropriate.
Peer Review
In accordance with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994
(59 FR 34270), we solicited expert opinions from eight knowledgeable
individuals with scientific expertise that included familiarity with
the nine Bexar County invertebrates, the geographic region in which the
species occur, and conservation biology principles. We received
responses from four of the peer reviewers.
We reviewed all comments received from the peer reviewers for
substantive issues and new information regarding critical habitat for
the nine Bexar County invertebrates. The peer reviewers generally
concurred with our methods and conclusions and provided additional
information, clarifications, and suggestions to improve the final
critical habitat rule. Peer reviewer comments are addressed in the
following summary and incorporated into the final rule as appropriate.
Peer Reviewer Comments
(1) Comment: One peer reviewer questioned whether tree roots were
present in the Bexar County caves in critical habitat and therefore
their nutrient importance.
Our Response: Tree roots are present in many of the Bexar County
caves in designated critical habitat, and we believe they are important
nutrient sources for the invertebrates.
(2) Comment: One peer reviewer stated that there should be more
discussion of the potential impacts of global warming and the predicted
increased drying expected in Texas (Banner et al. 2010). Another
commented that loss of habitat or reduction of habitat quality are
likely to be more immediate threats to the nine endangered karst
invertebrates than climate change effects.
Our Response: We agree and added information to emphasize the
threats of climate change on the species and the immediacy of habitat
destruction (see section on Special Management Considerations or
Protection).
(3) Comment: One peer reviewer stated that four of the listed
invertebrates are known from one or very few specimens from a single or
very few locations and are likely to suffer from the negative effects
of small population sizes and lack of genetic diversity. The reviewer
questions whether significant effort or expense should be directed to
their protection and monitoring, except where their locations overlap
with other species.
Our Response: While we agree that these species are rare and highly
vulnerable, the Act does not provide for flexibility regarding whether
or not they receive the protections of critical habitat.
(4) Comment: Two peer reviewers commented that monitoring plans
should be added as part of the final critical habitat.
Our Response: While monitoring is important, it is a component of
the recovery plan and is outside of the scope of critical habitat
determination under the Act.
(5) Comment: One peer reviewer said that we should be clear in the
document that the 100-meter (m) distance to protect cave crickets and
other invertebrates from red imported fire ant (Solenopsis invicta)
(fire ant) foraging comes from a study by Suarez et al. (1998) on
Argentine ants in California.
Our Response: We clarified this point, and based on this and other
comments, removed the 100-m distance.
Comments From the State
Section 4(i) of the Act states, ``the Secretary shall submit to the
State agency a written justification for his failure to adopt
regulations consistent with the agency's comments or petition.''
Comments received from the State regarding the proposal to designate
critical habitat for the nine Bexar County invertebrates are addressed
below.
(6) Comment: The proposed rule may have substantial impact on the
State's transportation system in Bexar County and will increase costs
and complexity of consultations. The State requested that the Service
not designate critical habitat in Texas Department of Transportation
(TxDOT) right of way (ROW).
Our Response: Because of changes in the criteria for delineation of
critical habitat units, some of the total area in TxDOT ROW has been
reduced. The impact of designation on transportation projects was
analyzed in the draft and final economic analyses, and based on the
estimated costs in that analysis, we did not find disproportionate
economic impacts of designation.
(7) Comment: One State agency (TxDOT) and several other individuals
commented that the use of the 0.3-mile (mi) distance for the
theoretical mesocavern boundary is not supported by the geologic or
genetic studies we cited.
Our Response: Based on these and other comments, and our own
internal analysis of the issue, we removed the 0.3-mi (0.5-kilometer
(km)) distance from this final rule. Please see the Summary of Changes
from Proposed Rule section.
[[Page 8454]]
(8) Comment: One State agency (TxDOT) commented that a review of
additional cave data for proposed Unit 16 indicates that the
hydrological component of the primary constituent element (PCE) does
not occur within the area of concern under and east of Loop 1604 and
should not be included in designated critical habitat. The commenter
also suggested that maintaining the intact surface communities in the
undeveloped area to the west of Loop 1604 is a higher conservation
priority and more likely to benefit the species in the cave.
Our Response: Based on these comments and other information
provided, we are not including this area in critical habitat, because
it does not meet the definition of critical habitat for any of the nine
Bexar County invertebrates.
(9) Comment: One State agency (TxDOT) and several other individuals
commented that the PCEs are too general and that critical habitat
should contain more than one PCE.
Our Response: Based on this and other comments and information
provided, we modified our PCEs and our criteria for delineation so that
both PCEs needed to be present a unit in order to meet the definition
of critical habitat.
(10) Comment: One State agency (TxDOT) and several other
individuals commented that the derivation of the area of native
vegetation required and the buffer against edge effects were not based
on the best available science.
Our Response: We believe the derivation was based on the best
available science for the vegetation requirements we identified in the
proposed rule. However, while native vegetation is beneficial to
promote the long-term viability of an area, the native vegetation
species we identified in the proposed rule may not be necessary to the
conservation of the nine Bexar County invertebrates. Based on these and
other comments, we revised the area needed around each occupied cave
entrance to focus on the optimal size necessary to provide long-term
viability for the listed species. We dropped the focus on deriving the
area based on native plant species and instead relied on the expert
opinion of the Bexar County Karst Invertebrates Recovery Team (Service
2008, pp. B-1-B-5) for the size of area needed, which is 100 ac (40 ha)
to meet conservation objectives.
(11) Comment: The State Comptroller stated that the proposed
critical habitat could have substantial impacts to this region of the
State and add additional costs to taxpayers without sufficient
scientific basis. The Service should delay all action in order to re-
examine this proposal and the available research.
Our Response: We have addressed the economic impacts of designation
to all parties through an economic analysis and have determined that
there will not be significant economic impacts due to this designation.
In addition, we carefully considered and addressed all comments
submitted. As a result of these comments and our analysis of the
issues, this final designation is smaller in area, and thus smaller in
the economic effects associated with the areas originally proposed. In
regards to delaying our action to designate critical habitat, we are
not able to delay because we are held to a February 7, 2012, deadline
to submit a final rule to the Federal Register according to a court-
ordered settlement agreement.
Public Comments
General Comments
Issue 1: Extent of mesocaverns to be included.
(12) Comment: Several commenters stated that site-specific geologic
information limits or precludes the use of the 0.3-mi (0.5-km) distance
as a measure of the distance that mesocaverns are likely to be
connected to occupied features in several proposed units.
Our Response: We agree that there may be site-specific issues
involved in some units. Based on this and other comments, we do not use
the specific 0.3-mi (0.5-km) as a criterion for delineating specific
mesocavern distance in this final critical habitat rule.
(13) Comment: The manner in which White (2006) is cited in the
proposed rule seems to indicate that the author determined that this
distance was appropriate for use in a critical habitat context and that
it can be appropriately applied to sites other than those that were
studied in detail. This is misleading.
Our Response: We have revised the wording in this final rule to
clarify this issue.
(14) Comment: White's (2006) research was not intended to yield a
buffer such as the 0.3-mi (0.5-km) distance. The distance was derived
by the Service indirectly from the results of that research.
Our Response: The Service acknowledges that the 0.3-mi (0.5-km)
distance was based on White's research, and that his research did not
specifically suggest using this distance in this way. See our responses
to comments (12) and (13), above.
(15) Comment: The Service's 0.3-mi (0.5-km) distance was derived
from a site located within the Edwards karst, which is highly modified
by the tremendous volume of fresh water that formed the Edwards Aquifer
and is quite different from geology and hydrologic conditions in many
other proposed units in Bexar County. A two-dimensional buffer cannot
be applied to a three-dimensional landscape without misrepresenting the
potential for gene flow through the karst. This is especially true in
the older, more eroded karst landscapes of the Helotes area where many
small islands of karst occur on hilltops. The distribution of genetic
diversity was found to be controlled by geologic structure (primarily
by faults), which imposes a linear, not radial, geometry on available
habitat. Ignoring site-specific geologic structure nearly guarantees
that a blanket radial buffer incorrectly represents the spatial
distribution of habitat.
Our Response: We acknowledge there are problems with applying the
0.3-mi (0.5-km) distance to all units, and, ideally, the distance would
be based on site-specific data or information. We have removed the 0.3-
mi (0.5-km) distance from this final rule. See our responses to
comments (12), (13), and (14), above.
(16) Comment: We believe the Service is misapplying the conclusions
in White (2006). If the species did travel 0.3-mi (0.5-km) through
connected mesocaverns, the genetics of Cicurina madla would be
identical in Robbers Cave and Hills and Dales Pit.
(17) Comment: Even with identical signatures in separate caves, it
is not possible to determine when that contact happened because it is
not known how long it would take two isolated populations to become
genetically different.
(18) Comment: The conclusion drawn by White (2006) is that, in
general, gene flow is not occurring between troglobite populations and
has not likely occurred in recent evolutionary timescale.
Our Response to Comments (16), (17), and (18): We agree that
similar genetic signatures do not demonstrate positively that the Madla
Cave meshweavers in the two caves we cited are not identical. We
acknowledge the limitations on the use of data from Hedin and Paquin
(2004, p. 3243) for this purpose. The question of whether identical
signatures demonstrate current connectivity is dependent on the
specific techniques used, sample sizes, and whether the genes being
examined are slowly or quickly evolving genes. We clarified these
points in, and removed any specific distance for mesocavern
connectivity from, this final rule.
[[Page 8455]]
(19) Comment: Several commenters stated that we inappropriately
used justification of genetic similarity of Cicurina in two caves to
justify use of the 0.3-mi (0.5-km) mesocavern distance.
Our Response: We stated in our proposed rule that White (2006, pp.
97-99) indicated the species were similar, not identical, and we used
this only as partially supporting information. Based on this and other
comments, we removed the mesocavern distance from this final rule.
(20) Comment: Occurrence of many caves with the same or similar
suites of species beyond the 0.3-mi (0.5-km) distance suggests that
using the mesocavernous distances at Camp Bullis is in fact more
representative of the distances of mesocavernous connectivity and
perhaps conservative at that. I strongly suggest reevaluating and
redrawing the proposed critical habitat areas with distances no less
than those demonstrated at Camp Bullis.
Our Response: While the mesocaverns may be connected to the 0.3-mi
(0.5-km) distance in some units, we are unable to find genetic
information that is adequate to determine maximum distance over which
population-level genetic exchange may occur. In the absence of that
information, and due to differences in site-specific geological
influences on connectivity, we decided not to use the 0.3-mi (0.5-km)
distance as a criterion for delineation.
Issue 2: Amount and type of vegetation needed.
(21) Comment: For critical habitat areas that contain healthy
native vegetation, a circular area of approximately 40 ac (16 ha) in
size (assuming one cave per preserve) would incorporate the biological
elements necessary to provide nutrient input into the caves and protect
the surface component of the karst ecosystem from edge effects and fire
ant infestation.
Our Response: We believe an area of 100 ac (40 ha) provides a
higher probability of species survival and conservation. We base this
on the expert opinion of the Bexar County Karst Invertebrates Recovery
Team (Service 2008, pp. B-1-B-5), and on the size of area needed to
meet certain conservation objectives. The area needed is based in part
on the fact that we believe the karst invertebrates occupy a larger
area than the caves, may be using mesocaverns more than caves, and may
spend the majority of their time in such retreats, only leaving the
mesocaverns during temporary forays into the larger cave passages to
forage (Howarth 1987, p. 377). We modified the justification for the
area needed to provide for the conservation of the species, focusing on
overall need for nutrient input, moisture, and mesocaverns.
(22) Comment: Several commenters stated that the 10-ac (4-ha)
grassland component was not present in some units and should not be
included as a component for all units.
Our Response: We modified the justification for the area needed to
provide for the conservation of the species, focusing on overall need
for nutrient input, moisture, and mesocaverns, rather than on specific
vegetation components.
(23) Comment: Comments on several units stated that site-specific
plant survey data should be utilized when available. In the absence of
this data, commenters suggest an area of roughly 33 ac (13 ha) would be
required to include 15 to 20 species of the Edwards plateau at a
population size of 80 individuals plus a distance of 66 feet (ft) (20
meters (m)) to protect against edge effects.
Our Response: We revised the criteria for designating critical
habitat by using an area with an overall size of 100 ac (40 ha) to
provide for the conservation of the species, focusing on overall need
for nutrient input, moisture, and mesocaverns, rather than on specific
vegetation components.
Issue 3: Cave cricket foraging area.
(24) Comment: Given the extremely low expected density of foraging
crickets in the outer 42 percent of cave cricket foraging distance, and
given the distance fire ants are known to travel from a mound, a
continuous woody canopy within 344 ft (105 m) of a cave is sufficient
to protect cave crickets from adjacent disturbance activities.
Our Response: We have revised this final rule to be consistent with
the final Bexar County Karst Invertebrates Recovery Plan's Karst
Invertebrates Preserve Design Recommendations Document (Service 2011a,
p. 4).
Issue 4: Amount of critical habitat proposed.
(25) Comment: All of Karst Zones 1 and 2 should be included in
critical habitat because long-term stewardship necessitates that
protected karst formations and associated mesocaverns contiguous to
occupied features be larger to provide microclimate refugia to counter
the adverse impacts of climate change, pollution, invasive species, and
stochastic events.
Our Response: While we agree that additional mesocavernous areas
may be desirable for species conservation, we lack adequate data to
justify designating as critical habitat all of Karst Zones 1 and 2. We
made our final critical habitat designation consistent with recovery
criteria for high-quality KFRs in the final Bexar County Karst
Invertebrates Recovery Plan's Karst Invertebrates Preserve Design
Recommendations Document (Service 2011a, pp. 3-5).
(26) Comment: The Service seems to be ignoring the 2008 Draft
Recovery Plan for the Bexar County Invertebrates. An analysis of the
required KFAs across each KFR for the species indicates that 4,350 ac
(1,760 ha) would be required to meet downlisting criteria. The Service
now proposes 6,906 ac (2,795 ha) that, when combined with the Camp
Bullis Karst Management Areas, now totals 8,976 ac (3,632 ha). We do
not understand why, if 4,350 ac (1,760 ha) can result in downlisting of
the species, 8,976 ac (3,632 ha) are essential for the conservation of
the species.
Our Response: In this final critical habitat designation, we relied
heavily on the 2011 Final Recovery Plan for the nine Bexar County
invertebrates (Service 2011). Because we have a final recovery plan,
the recommendations to use the draft recovery plan are not followed.
Also, we designated low-quality units that do not count for the
recovery of individual species, because not enough high- and medium-
quality KFAs are available in the proper configuration to meet recovery
criteria for some KFRs. In addition, none of the KFAs is currently
fully protected, and we have no way of predicting which, if any, will
be fully protected in the future. Therefore, we believe all areas
designated meet the definition of critical habitat and are necessary
for the conservation of the species. The total area designated in this
rule, however, has been reduced to 4,216 ac (1,706 ha) as a result of
exemptions and exclusions (explained later in this rule).
Issue 5: Information quality and general comments.
(27) Comment: The Service has created critical habitat units that,
in many cases, may only include one of the primary constituent
elements, with no hope of ever creating the other two. This seriously
calls into question the method used to develop areas of critical
habitat.
Our Response: We acknowledged in the proposed rule that not all
units contain all the PCEs. For some species, we believed it was
appropriate to propose some units that did not have all of the PCEs.
For species that occur in only a few locations that have had
substantial negative impacts to one or more of the PCEs, we still
proposed to designate critical habitat, because the PCEs that are
present can support the listed species to some extent. For example,
surface habitat without a healthy plant and animal community
[[Page 8456]]
can continue to support listed invertebrates below the surface, and
clean water from modified surface areas can provide the humidity needed
by the listed invertebrates. However, in this final rule, we have
reduced the number of PCEs to two and only included areas in the
critical habitat designation that contain both PCEs in close enough
proximity to each other to be used by the invertebrate population in
the area.
(28) Comment: Cave crickets and fire ants do not have significant
overlap and are not competitive in their natural environment.
Our Response: We have evaluated the available information and
believe that the preponderance of information on the topic indicates
there is some overlap. We added language to this final rule to
acknowledge the information submitted by the commenter and to explain
the reason for our conclusion.
(29) Comment: It appears certain boundaries have been intentionally
drawn to create a negative impact on property owners and the State of
Texas, with no conservation or recovery benefit to the species.
Our Response: We had no agenda in proposing certain areas as
critical habitat except to designate the appropriate areas essential
for conservation of the species. We based the proposed boundaries on
the best available information. We have revised the boundaries of
critical habitat designation in this final rule based on the best
available scientific and commercial data available, including comments
we received as a result of our proposed rule.
(30) Comment: The proposed rule is legally insufficient. The
Service has insufficiently identified critical habitat. The Service has
not demonstrated that the proposed critical habitat is occupied.
Our Response: We believe the proposed rule was legally sufficient.
As part of section 3(5)(A)(ii) of the Act's definition of critical
habitat, proposed areas do not have to be occupied at the time of
listing if such areas are essential for the conservation of the
species. Additional descriptions of the criteria used to designate
critical habitat and the PCEs have been added to this final rule.
(31) Comment: The Service's approach circumvents the additional
findings that the Service is required to make before designating
unoccupied habitat (see Cape Hatteras Access Preservation Alliance v.
Dep't of Interior, 344 F.Supp.2d 108, 124 (D.D.C. 2004) (``Cape
Hatteras''); Home Builders Ass'n of Northern California v. U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Serv., 268 F.Supp.2d 1197 (E.D. Cal. 2002)).
Our Response: We believe that all units we are designating are
currently occupied and contain the physical and biological features
essential to the conservation of the species, which may require special
management considerations or protection. Even though recent survey
efforts have failed to detect a listed invertebrate species in one or
more of the units, the lack of positive survey results does not
indicate with reasonable certainty that a listed species is absent from
a cave. In many cases, it takes intensive survey efforts conducted over
several years to find a specimen. At one time or another, a specimen
has been documented in all the units we are designating, and at this
time, we lack substantial evidence to indicate that certain units are
no longer occupied. Therefore, we consider all critical habitat units
as being occupied at the time of listing.
(32) Comment: The Service has insufficiently identified the PCEs.
The Service does not ``identify the physical or biological features
essential to the conservation [of the species] in a meaningful way''
(Homebuilders Association of Northern California v. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Serv., 268 F.Supp.2d 1197, 1213 (E.D. Ca. 2003). The court in
the 2003 Homebuilder's case (hereinafter referred to as the Whipsnake
case) found that very similar PCE descriptions were insufficient.
Our Response: We added additional language to this final rule to
describe why the PCEs are essential to the conservation of the species.
(33) Comment: The Whipsnake case also criticized the Service for
designating areas that were without one or more PCEs within the
designated boundaries. Throughout the proposed rule there are units
proposed in heavily developed areas that cannot be assumed to contain
the necessary elements for the conservation of the karst species. The
Service gives only a generic, cursory indication of how these proposed
units provide the PCEs identified in the proposed rule.
Our Response: See our response to comment (27), above. In this
final rule, we have reduced the number of PCEs to two and only included
areas in the critical habitat designation that contain both PCEs in
close enough proximity to each other to be used by the invertebrate
population in the area.
(34) Comment: The Service does not provide information as to why
each identified PCE would need special management or protection at the
unit. Courts have required that the Service, in demonstrating that the
designated areas meet the statutory requirements, provide an analysis
for why the proposed critical habitat may require special management
(Cape Hatteras, 344 F.Supp.2d at 124). Courts have found that the
Service did not meet its burden where the Service did not provide
analysis: ``Rather than discuss how each identified PCE would need
management or protection, the Service lists activities that once
resulted in consultations and makes a conclusory statement that
dredging or shoreline management could result in permanent habitat
loss. This does not meet the Service's burden'' (Cape Hatteras, 344
F.Supp.2d at 124; Whipsnake case, 268 F.Supp.2d at 1218).
(35) Comment: It is hard to imagine, for example, what special
management may be required for those units proposed in heavily
developed areas that do not contain PCEs for surface water or a healthy
surface native plants, but rather have been designated solely for the
area's subterranean spaces. With that sort of development and lack of
surface PCEs, how can the Service reasonably state that special
management may be required? The Service is statutorily required to
provide this analysis, and the designation is legally deficient without
it.
Our Response to Comments (34) and (35): We added language to the
section on special management to describe specifically why such
management was required for each PCE. Because of the changes in
criteria for delineation, we have revised some of the boundaries of
critical habitat for low-quality units and added additional description
of the special management and protection needs.
(36) Comment: The Service has not complied with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). The Service
has not prepared an environmental impact statement in accordance with
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The U.S. Court of Appeals
for the 10th Circuit and the U.S. District Court of the District of
Columbia have both held that the Service must comply with NEPA when
designating critical habitat.
Our Response: As we stated in the proposed rule, it is our position
that, outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Tenth Circuit, we do not need to prepare environmental analyses as
defined by NEPA in connection with designating critical habitat under
the Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this
determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR
49244). This position was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d
[[Page 8457]]
1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S. 1042 (1996)).
(37) Comment: In general, it appears that some delineation may not
adequately consider hydrogeologic conditions that may affect the
boundaries. If the comment suggesting that the distances demonstrated
at Camp Bullis is accepted and the unit boundaries reevaluated on that
basis, I suggest that geologic maps and previous reports on the
hydrogeology of all of the caves be re-examined.
Our Response: For this final rule, we reevaluated the available
information, eliminated the 0.3-mi (0.5-km) distance, and did not
accept the distance of mesocaverns for Camp Bullis to apply as a rule
of thumb for designation of critical habitat.
(38) Comment: Please update your information at the bottom of the
page on the number of caves in Bexar County at the time of listing. In
September 2000, 437 caves were known in Bexar County. More
significantly, about 25 percent had been sealed or destroyed, including
some that had not been biologically studied but which by observation of
fauna had likely contained some of the listed species. As of today, 523
caves are registered in the county (the actual number is probably about
530) with 103 confirmed as sealed or destroyed and about 40 suspected
as sealed or destroyed but which need to be visited for confirmation.
Our Response: We have modified this final rule accordingly.
Issue 6: Exclusions.
(39) Comment: The designation of Unit 1e is imprudent under 16
U.S.C. 1533(a)(3). The Act's regulations provide that, ``A designation
of critical habitat is not prudent when one or both of the following
situations exist: (i) The species is threatened by taking or other
human activity, and identification of critical habitat can be expected
to increase the degree of such threat to the species, or (ii) Such
designation of critical habitat would not be beneficial to the
species'' (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)).
Our Response: We do not believe either situation applies to Unit
1e. This unit contains the physical or biological features essential to
the conservation of the species and which may require special
management or protection, thus meeting definition of critical habitat
in accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act. Also, proposed
critical habitat was published for the unit, so designation is not
likely to increase the threats from human activity. Designation of
critical habitat will provide additional protection from future Federal
activities that would adversely modify critical habitat and help to
educate Federal agencies and the public about the sensitivity of the
area.
(40) Comment: Proposed Unit 1e should not be included in the
designation of critical habitat for the nine karst invertebrate species
of Bexar County, Texas. The benefits of excluding Unit 1e far outweigh
the benefits of its inclusion. The economic taint of the designation is
far more powerful than any unnecessary conservation benefit conferred
by a designation. The benefits of promoting voluntary conservation
efforts far outweigh the benefit of including Unit 1e as designated
critical habitat.
Our Response: Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we are exluding
approximately 64 ac (26 ha) of preserve land in Unit 1e, which is being
managed in perpetuity under the La Cantera Habitat Conservation Plan
(HCP) for the conservation of the listed species. Also, an economic
analysis was performed and did not demonstrate substantial economic
impacts from critical habitat designation. Finally, the remaining 410
ac (166 ha) of critical habitat in Unit 1e does provide additional
protection for the listed species and their habitat.
Comments on Developmental Impacts
(41) Comment: The draft economic analysis (DEA) underestimates
potential economic impacts of critical habitat on development in Unit
1e. The comment states that the Canyon Ranch parcel is well-suited for
development and that the developer has already obtained a Water
Pollution Abatement Plan from the Texas Commission on Environmental
Quality, a Utility Service Agreement with the San Antonio Water System,
and an approved Master Development Plan from the City of San Antonio.
In addition, substantial engineering, soil testing, surveying, staking,
and construction of a portion of Phase I water line has also been
completed. The commenter estimates that undiscounted losses would range
between $2.90 million (based on an undeveloped land value of $24,744
per acre) to $7.83 million (based on the sales price of lots less cost
of development).
Our Response: The draft economic analysis (DEA) evaluates two
scenarios with respect to development impacts. Scenario 1 assumes that
the project reduces habitat quality to the extent that jeopardy is a
concern and therefore development restrictions are recommended
regardless of critical habitat designation (i.e., impacts are
baseline). Scenario 2 assumes that the project has a lesser effect on
habitat quality (i.e., reducing it from high to medium) and therefore
development is precluded because of critical habitat designation
(jeopardy is not a concern). Under scenario 2, impacts to development
are incremental. For the 118 acres within Unit 1e, the DEA applied a
per-acre land value of $6,900 as determined from review of county land
appraisal data. In response to this comment, however, we followed up
with the Bexar Appraisal District to affirm the statement in the
comment that land value in this unit is underestimated. The Appraisal
District indicated that the land value in the unit is likely between
$14,000 and $17,000 per acre. Consequently, the final economic analysis
(FEA) revises the land value loss estimate from that provided in the
DEA. Specifically, the FEA applies a range of per-acre land values from
a low end of $14,000 as suggested by the Appraisal District, to a high
end of $24,700 as suggested in the public comment. This change results
in the estimated present value incremental impacts to development in
Unit 1e under scenario 2 being revised from $770,000 in the DEA to
between $1,550,000 and $2,740,000 in the FEA. This revision is
discussed in detail in section 4.2 of the FEA.
(42) Comment: The use of appraisal data to determine land values
results in an underestimate of impacts to development. Appraisal data
does not take into consideration land development entitlements, master
plan approvals, offsite infrastructure improvements, utility
agreements, onsite road extensions, or the highest and best use for the
property. The commenter estimates that land values are off by a factor
of four for Unit 14, a factor of 10 for Unit 21, and a factor of 4 for
Unit 26.
Our Response: In general, appraisal data reflect the best available
information regarding the potential value of parcels within the
critical habitat. The appraised estimates are based on the information
available regarding future uses of the parcel at the time of the
appraisal (including any ongoing master plan efforts, land use
agreements, and entitlements). To the extent that the latest assessment
of a parcel occurred prior approval of a master plan, utility
agreement, or other such improvements, the assessed value may
underestimate the value of a parcel. Exhibit 4-5 in the DEA presents
the appraised, average per-acre land values of $10,500 in Unit 14,
$43,100 in Unit 21, and $34,500 in Unit 26 applied in the DEA. In
response to this comment, we followed up with the Bexar Appraisal
District and an independent broker to affirm the statement in the
comment that the land values in these
[[Page 8458]]
units are underestimated. The broker indicated that the land value in
Unit 14 is approximately $43,600 per acre and land value in Unit 26 is
$87,100 per acre. The appraiser and broker provided average land values
for the developable portion of Unit 21 located outside of the 100-year
flood plain ranging from $174,000 to $218,000. Consequently, the FEA
revises the land value loss estimates from those provided in the DEA.
Specifically, the FEA applies a range of per-acre land values from a
low end of $42,100 to a high end of $43,600 in Unit 14, $174,000 to
$431,000 in Unit 21, and $87,100 to $138,000 in Unit 26. These changes
result in the estimated present value incremental impacts to
development in Unit 14 under scenario 2 being revised from $3,250,000
in the DEA to between $13,000,000 and $13,400,000 in the FEA; from
$12,000,000 to between $3,260,000 and $8,050,000 in Unit 21; and from
$3,790,000 to between $9,530,000 and $15,100,000 in Unit 26. This
revision is discussed in detail in section 4.2 of the FEA.
(43) Comment: The DEA underestimates potential economic impacts of
critical habitat on development within Unit 13. The comment asserts
that the designation would eliminate the development value of these
parcels, resulting in a direct impact on the landowners' revenues in
excess of $6 million. Similarly, another comment states that
incremental impacts on future development in Unit 25 would be $20
million, taking into account land value and the future value of
development. A third similar comment states that the DEA does not
include impacts to development in Units 12 and 16. The comment asserts
that multi-family sites in these units subject to Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) financing have already lost sales to apartment
developers as a result of the proposed critical habitat designation.
Our Response: Chapter 4 of the DEA describes that development would
be precluded in Units 12, 13, 16, and 25 regardless of critical habitat
designation because they are low-quality units in Karst Zones 1 and 2.
As described in Section 3.7 of the DEA, in low-quality units, the
Service anticipates recommending development be precluded in order to
avoid jeopardy. Therefore, development restrictions are anticipated
regardless of critical habitat designation, and incremental impacts of
critical habitat designation are expected to be limited to additional
administrative effort during consultation.
(44) Comment: Two comments assert that the DEA underestimates
potential economic impacts of critical habitat designation on
development in Unit 8. One commenter estimates the lost development
value to 200 single-family lots in the Cedar Creek Development to be
$4.5 million. These lots have been engineered and entitled at Cedar
Creek over the past 6 years. Another commenter estimates that the
development site is worth $7 million. In addition, the commenter
estimates a loss of $35 million in construction-related expenditures
and $200 million in home and business sales. Similarly, multiple
comments assert that the DEA underestimates impacts to development by
not including the loss of taxes to local governments and by failing to
include the ``multiplier effect'' of development, such as the increase
in demand for furniture and landscaping.
Our Response: Chapter 4 of the DEA estimates incremental impacts to
development in Unit 8 ranging from $0 (scenario 1) to $5,590,000
(scenario 2) in the first 20 years and $0 to $17,100 after 20 years.
Scenario 2 assumes development restrictions on 299.5 acres of
developable land in Unit 8 will reduce the land value by $19,600 per
acre based on county appraisal data. The DEA estimate of land value
losses of $5.59 million is within the range of the value losses
described by these comments ($4.5 million to $7 million).
As explained in paragraphs 154 and 155 of the DEA, the proposed
critical habitat area accounts for only 1.6 percent of the total land
area projected for development within the next 29 years within the
northern portion of Bexar County. Consequently, the designation of
critical habitat is not expected to have an effect on broader regional
real estate demand and supply due to the existence of substitute sites
for development activities. As a result, impacts to the regional
construction industry and loss in revenue associated with home and
business sales (estimated in a comment at $200 million) are not
anticipated to occur. In addition, a reduction in housing supply is
unlikely due to the existence of substitute sites, and a measurable
loss of tax revenue is not expected to result from critical habitat
designation.
(45) Comment: Multiple comments state that, unrelated to the
designation of critical habitat for the invertebrates, recent
undertakings will decrease land values in northwest Bexar County (in
particular Unit 3). These undertakings include: (1) San Antonio Water
System's decision to abandon all plans to extend water and sewer
services into northwest Bexar County and (2) a recent decision to allow
properties within a 5-mile buffer of the Edwards Aquifer recharge zone
to be purchased using Proposition 1 funds.
Our Response: The DEA estimates the average per-acre value of
unimproved, developable land within each unit using Bexar County land
value appraisal data. These data represent the best available
information regarding land values. To the extent that recent decisions
may impact the value of land in northwest Bexar County, these values
may be over- or understated.
(46) Comment: The DEA should reassess the incremental impacts of
the proposed rule by carefully measuring the impact of critical habitat
designation on the areas covered by the La Cantera HCP, including the
acres of the La Cantera development land in Unit 9.
Our Response: The areas preserved as part of the La Cantera HCP in
Units 1e, 3, 6, 8, and 17 are being excluded from critical habitat, and
the areas authorized for development under the La Cantera HCP in Unit 9
are excluded as well in this final designation.
(47) Comment: The DEA underestimates the impacts of the expansion
of several proposed critical habitat units from the previous 2003
critical habitat for these species.
Our Response: The DEA estimates impacts associated with the revised
proposed critical habitat designation. This revised designation
includes a number of proposed revised units that are larger than they
were in the 2003 designation. Section 3.7 of the DEA describes the
Service's approach to section 7 consultation in these expanded units,
as evaluated in the DEA. Currently, the Service notifies project
proponents of the need to consult on the impacts to the invertebrate
species of activities with a Federal nexus within Karst Zones 1 and 2
regardless of critical habitat designation. Consultation on projects
within Karst Zone 3 would not occur absent critical habitat
designation, and therefore these impacts are considered incremental of
the designation.
(48) Comment: The third party and biological assessment incremental
administrative costs applied in the DEA are underestimated. The
commenter believes that third party and biological assessment costs
should be at least 10 times greater due to the amount of time and
effort necessary to analyze potential impacts within a critical habitat
unit.
Our Response: The administrative costs applied in the DEA are based
on a review of consultation records from several Service field offices
across Bexar County conducted in 2002. For consultations that would
occur absent
[[Page 8459]]
critical habitat designation (i.e., those in Karst Zones 1 and 2), the
incremental administrative cost only represents the additional effort
needed to address adverse modification of critical habitat. As the
Service is not expected to request any additional conservation efforts
as a result of the adverse modification analysis (which arises from a
critical habitat designation), we anticipate that the additional effort
necessary to address this standard within any biological assessments is
relatively minimal compared to the effort required to consider jeopardy
to the species (which arises from the listing of the nine invertebrate
species).
(49) Comment: Two comments state that even absent a Federal nexus,
the sigma of critical habitat will eliminate the development value of
properties located within Units 13 and 25.
Our Response: The potential for critical habitat to result in a
stigma effect, for example, on property values, is described on page 2-
17 of the DEA. In some cases, the public may perceive that critical
habitat designation results in limitations on private property uses
above and beyond those associated with anticipated project
modifications. The DEA assumes that all future development projects
within the proposed critical habitat would be subject to a Federal
nexus and therefore section 7 consultation regarding the invertebrates.
Because scenario 2 of the DEA assumes a complete loss in development
value for developable lands, further reductions in land value due to
stigma are not expected.
Comments on the DEA's Small Business Analysis
(50) Comment: Two comments note that the developers in Units 1e and
13 are not accounted for in Exhibit A-1 as the number of private
landowners is zero.
Our Response: As described in paragraph 1 of Appendix A of the DEA,
this appendix considers the extent to which incremental impacts from
critical habitat designation may be borne by small entities. Exhibit A-
1 of the DEA highlights the number of private landowners of parcels for
which incremental impacts to development are estimated. The DEA
analyzes two scenarios, in the first scenario, no incremental impacts
are expected in Unit 1e and therefore no landowners are affected. In
the second scenario, the analysis assumes that five landowners are
affected in Unit 1e. If the developer in Unit 1e is also the landowner,
then the developer would be included in this number. Because Unit 13 is
of low quality and located in Karst Zones 1 and 2, all impacts are
expected to be baseline. No incremental impacts are forecast in Unit
13, and therefore no landowners are affected.
(51) Comment: Exhibit A-1 inappropriately omits those lands that
are being considered for exclusion.
Our Response: The areas being excluded are preserved as part of the
La Cantera Habitat Conservation Plan. These areas are not considered
developable lands and therefore no impacts to future development are
anticipated. The footnote to Exhibit A-1 has been revised in the FEA to
better explain why lands considered for exclusion are not included in
the FEA's small business analysis.
Comments on Biological Issues That Inform the DEA
(52) Comment: Two comments state that the assumption that there are
no incremental impacts in areas that are presently low-quality habitat
is incorrect. The commenters assert that because these areas do not fit
into the ``minimum conservation criteria'' described in the DEA, the
Service could not sustain a jeopardy determination and therefore any
project modifications requested by the Service would be due to critical
habitat designation.
Our Response: As described in section 3.7 of the DEA, the Service
anticipates that a jeopardy finding is likely in low-quality units in
Karst Zones 1 and 2 if the project further reduces the habitat quality.
Projects that would further reduce quality include those that fill in
cave entrances or those that substantially reduce the remaining cave
cricket foraging area. Such actions would likely result in jeopardy
because they would appreciably reduce the likelihood that the species
would persist in that unit. If the recovery criteria have not been met
for the species (and they have not for any of the KFRs where low-
quality units are being designated), recovery would also be
substantially reduced. Therefore, the action would likely result in a
jeopardy determination.
(53) Comment: Two comments state that the previous protocols issued
by the Service on March 8, 2006, indicate that projects that may affect
the listed species can avoid doing so by preserving the cave entrance
and as little as nine acres of ``core habitat'' around the entrance.
The DEA assumes that complete avoidance of critical habitat would be
recommended to avoid jeopardy or adverse modification in Karst Zones 1
and 2. Assuming that complete avoidance of critical habitat would be
recommended to avoid jeopardy leads to an overstatement of baseline
impacts.
Our Response: As described in section 3.7 of the DEA, the Service
has recommended the minimum conservation criteria as outlined in the
Recovery Plan as part of section 7 consultation on past development
projects. Following these past examples, the Service anticipates making
these recommendations to future projects that may jeopardize the
species. The document issued on March 8, 2006, United States Fish and
Wildlife Service, Section 10(a)(1)(A) Scientific Permit Requirements
for Conducting Presence/Absence Surveys for Endangered Karst
Invertebrates in Central Texas, makes no statements about effects of
development to listed species or to core habitat that should be
preserved. These recommendations were updated on September 8, 2011.
Other Economic-Related Comments
(54) Comment: In exhibit ES-4, it appears that the minimum
conservation criteria have only been met in one unit (Unit 22), while
according to exhibit 4-2, the minimum conservation criteria have been
met in three units (Units 7, 22, and 23).
Our Response: Exhibit ES-4 presents key uncertainties associated
with the estimated incremental impacts of critical habitat designation
for the invertebrates. While the minimum conservation criteria have
been met in three units (Units 7, 22, and 23), incremental impacts are
only anticipated in Unit 22, as Unit 22 is the only high-quality unit
of the three. Units 7 and 23 are low-quality units, and thus the
Service anticipates recommending development be precluded in order to
avoid jeopardy (i.e., they are included in the baseline). Text has been
added to exhibit ES-4 in the FEA to clarify this point.
(55) Comment: One comment requests that better explanation be given
to if and how habitat quality and project modification relate.
Our Response: As described in section 3.7 of the DEA, the project
modifications recommended to avoid jeopardy and adverse modification
are the same. The initial habitat quality of a unit, along with how the
project impacts the unit's quality and the project's location within a
Karst Zone, affects whether the request for the project modification is
generated by jeopardy concerns (i.e., the recommendation would be made
regardless of critical habitat designation) or by adverse modification
concerns (i.e., specifically because of critical habitat designation).
[[Page 8460]]
Summary of Changes From Proposed Rule
In the February 22, 2011, proposed rule (76 FR 9872), we delineated
critical habitat boundaries on the basis of the following criteria: (1)
Known occupied caves; (2) the cave footprint with surface and
subsurface drainage areas associated with the occupied cave; (3) the
cave cricket foraging area that is a 344-ft (105-m) circle around the
cave entrance, plus an additional 330-ft (100-m) distance to protect
against edge effects from invasive species; (4) contiguous geological
formations of Karst Zone 1 to protect mesocaverns likely connected to
the caves to a distance of 0.3 mi (0.5 km) from the cave entrance; and
(5) native vegetation of an area of at least 100 ac (40 ha) needed to
support the diversity of native plant species normally found in the
Edwards Plateau communities.
Based on the best available scientific and commercial information
and information provided from the public and peer reviews, we reviewed
our methodology for determining the extent of critical habitat
designation for the Bexar County karst invertebrates. We refined the
boundaries of our proposed critical habitat units for this final
designation and revised our description of the methodology and
rationale used in defining the critical habitat boundaries. We made
several changes from the proposed rule in this final rule. The changes
include: (1) Modifying and reducing the number of PCEs from three to
two; (2) removing the 0.3-mi (0.5-km) mesocavern protection area; (3)
removing the additional 330-ft (100-m) distance beyond the 344-ft (105-
m) cave cricket foraging area to protect against edge effects from
invasive species (the 344-ft (105-m) cave cricket foraging area remains
a criterion); (4) changing the justification for 100 ac (40 ha) needed
around a cave; and (5) removing five previously proposed units that no
longer meet the revised criteria used to designate critical habitat.
Overall, these changes result in our designation of 4,216 ac (1,706 ha)
in 30 units as critical habitat, as compared to our proposed
designation of 6,906 ac (2,795 ha) in 35 units. Table 1 provides a
unit-by-unit list of the changes in this final rule. The changes are
described in more detail below.
Table 1--Comparison of Proposed and Final Critical Habitat Unit Sizes for the Nine Bexar County Invertebrates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Size of proposed Size of final
Unit units in acres units in acres Land ownership Listed species in unit
(hectares) (hectares) type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1a........................... 238 ac.......... 144 ac.......... State.......... R. infernalis
(96 ha)......... (58 ha). C. madla
1b........................... 178 ac.......... 100 ac.......... State.......... C. vespera
(72 ha)......... (40 ha). N. microps
R. exilis
R. infernalis
1c........................... 178 ac.......... 100 ac.......... State.......... C. madla
(72 ha)......... (40 ha).........
1d........................... 349 ac.......... 225 ac.......... State.......... C. madla
(141 ha)........ (91 ha). R. exilis
R. infernalis
1e *......................... 690 ac.......... 410 ac.......... State.......... R. infernalis
(279 ha)........ (166 ha)........ City........... R. exilis
Private........ B. venyivi
C. madla
1f........................... 178 ac.......... 100 ac.......... State.......... R. infernalis
(72 ha)......... (40 ha).........
2............................ 252 ac.......... 180 ac.......... Private........ C. madla
(102 ha)........ (73 ha). R. exilis
R. infernalis
3 *.......................... 125 ac.......... 85 ac........... Private........ C. madla
(51 ha)......... (34 ha). R. exilis
R. infernalis
B. venyivi
4............................ 255 ac.......... 210 ac.......... Private........ R. exilis
(103 ha)........ (85 ha). R. infernalis
5............................ 117 ac.......... 100 ac.......... Private........ C. madla
(47 ha)......... (40 ha). R. exilis
R. infernalis
B. venyivi
6 *.......................... 105 ac.......... 96 ac........... Private........ C. madla
(42 ha)......... (39 ha)......... City........... R. exilis
R. infernalis
7............................ 158 ac.......... 100 ac.......... Private........ R. exilis
(64 ha)......... (40 ha).........
8 *.......................... 471 ac.......... 243 ac.......... Private........ C. madla
(191 ha)........ (98 ha)......... City........... R. infernalis
R. exilis
9............................ 286 ac.......... 105 ac.......... State.......... C. madla
(116 ha)........ (42 ha)......... Private........ R. exilis
10a \1\...................... 67 ac........... 38 ac........... City........... R. infernalis
(27 ha)......... (15 ha)......... Private........
10b \1\...................... 66 ac........... 35 ac........... City........... R. infernalis
(27 ha)......... (14 ha).........
11a \1\...................... 21 ac........... Removed......... Private........ R. exilis
(8.5 ha)........ (0 ac, 0 ha)....
[[Page 8461]]
11b \1\...................... 16 ac........... Removed......... Private........ R. exilis
6.5 ha.......... (0 ac, 0 ha)....
11c \1\...................... 21 ac........... Removed......... Private........ R. exilis
8.5 ha.......... (0 ac, 0 ha)....
11d \1\...................... 52 ac........... Removed......... Private........ R. exilis
21 ha........... (0 ac, 0 ha)....
11e.......................... 102 ac.......... 89 ac........... Private........ R. exilis
(41 ha)......... (36 ha).........
12........................... 371 ac.......... 166 ac.......... Private........ R. exilis
(150 ha)........ (67 ha).........
13........................... 187 ac.......... 100 ac.......... Private........ R. exilis
(76 ha)......... (41 ha).........
14........................... 330 ac.......... 292 ac.......... Private........ R. infernalis
(134 ha)........ (118 ha)........
15........................... 339 ac.......... 217 ac.......... Private........ C. venii
(137 ha)........ (88 ha). R. infernalis
16........................... 194 ac.......... 103 ac.......... Private........ R. infernalis
(76 ha)......... (42 ha).........
17 *......................... 114 ac.......... 96 ac........... Private........ C. madla
(46 ha)......... (39 ha). R. infernalis
19........................... 142 ac.......... 81 ac........... Private........ R. infernalis
(57 ha)......... (33 ha).........
20........................... 247 ac.......... 247 ac.......... Private........ T. cokendolpheri
(100 ha)........ (100 ha). C. baronia
21........................... 396 ac.......... 154 ac.......... City........... R. exilis
(160 ha)........ (62 ha)......... Private........
22........................... 178 ac.......... 100 ac.......... City........... C. madla
(72 ha)......... (40 ha)......... Private........
23........................... 178 ac.......... 100 ac.......... City........... R. infernalis
(72 ha)......... (40 ha)......... Private........
24 \1\....................... 11 ac........... Removed......... Private........ R. exilis
(4.5 ha)........ (0 ac, 0 ha)....
25........................... 177 ac.......... 100 ac.......... Private........ C. baronia
(72 ha)......... (41 ha).........
26........................... 117 ac.......... 100 ac.......... Private........ R. infernalis
(47 ha)......... (41 ha).........
------------------------------------
Totals................... 6,906 ac........ 4,365 ac........
(2,795 ha)...... (1,766 ha)......
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Indicates unit where lands managed under the La Cantera HCP have been excluded in accordance with section
4(b)(2) of the Act.
\1\ Cave is located on Camp Bullis; final critical habitat is outside Camp Bullis.
Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding.
Based on information we received in comments regarding the clarity
of the PCEs necessary to provide for conservation of the species, we
reduced the number of PCEs from three to two. In this final rule, we
omit proposed PCE 2 (surface water free of pollutants that flows into
the karst features) and include pollutant-free moisture as a component
of karst (PCE 1), because the function of surface water free of
pollutants is to maintain the high humidity needed by the invertebrates
in the karst features, and this is now described in PCE 1. We also
change proposed PCE 3 to include more general sources of nutrient
input, rather than focusing on native plant communities, because we do
not know the precise vegetative community requirements needed for the
conservation of the species. Although we believe that native plant
communities are preferred, are important, and can increase the long-
term stability of habitat, nonnative plant species may also serve as
sources of nutrients, particularly in units that are partially
developed.
In the proposed rule, we delineated unit boundaries to a distance
of 0.3 mi (0.5 km) from the caves to capture the amount of contiguous
karst deposit we estimated was necessary to provide for subsurface
movement of listed species through mesocaverns between and around
occupied caves. However, because of comments we received and an
internal review of the available information on the reliability of the
genetic and geologic studies information, upon which we relied to
propose this distance, we determined that we did not have sufficient
information to justify this distance as a criterion. We also removed
the justification of an area needed to support an assemblage of
vegetation native to the Edwards Plateau. Instead, we used the Bexar
County Karst Invertebrates Recovery Team's expert opinion (Service
2008, pp. B-1-B-5) that an area of 100 ac (40 ha) provides a higher
probability of species survival and conservation, including nutrient
input, moisture, and mesocaverns. Therefore, in this final rule, we
delineate the boundaries to include an area of about 100 ac (40 ha)
that includes subsurface karst deposits, the cave footprint, surface
and subsurface drainage areas, a cave cricket foraging area, and, where
possible, at least 100 ac (40 ha) of undisturbed or restorable
vegetation. Because of these revisions, the size of many units is
reduced substantially (see Table 1, above). See
[[Page 8462]]
the Criteria Used to Identify Critical Habitat section for additional
details.
As a result in these changes in criteria used to identify critical
habitat, we completely removed five units from this final designation
that had been proposed for designation (Units 11a, 11b, 11c, 11d, and
24). All of these units were located adjacent to Department of Defense
lands (Camp Bullis Military Reservation (Camp Bullis)), and because
applying the new criteria for delineation left little or no habitat
associated with the occupied cave and associated karst on Camp Bullis,
the lands are not designated as critical habitat in this rule. In
addition, a large portion of Unit 9 north of highway Loop 1604 is not
included in this final designation because most of the property was
authorized for development under La Cantera's HCP, and the small,
undisturbed area around the remaining features is not considered to be
essential to the conservation of the species because of its small size
and because highly impervious cover in the surrounding area has reduced
the input of nutrients and moisture (see Exclusions section for more
details).
Critical Habitat
Background
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
(1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which
are found those physical or biological features
(a) Essential to the conservation of the species and
(b) Which may require special management considerations or
protection; and
(2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas
are essential for the conservation of the species.
Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use
and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring
an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures
provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and
procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated
with scientific resources management such as research, census, law
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live
trapping, and transplantation, and in the extraordinary case where
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise
relieved, may include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act
through the requirement that Federal agencies ensure, in consultation
with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is
not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect
land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or
other conservation area. Such designation does not allow the government
or public to access private lands. Such designation does not require
implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by
non-Federal landowners. Where a landowner requests Federal agency
funding or authorization for an action that may affect a listed species
or critical habitat, the consultation requirements of section 7(a)(2)
of the Act would apply; even in the event of a destruction or adverse
modification finding, however, the obligation of the Federal action
agency and the landowner is not to restore or recover the species, but
to implement reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid destruction
or adverse modification of critical habitat.
Under the first prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
it was listed are included in a critical habitat designation if they
contain physical or biological features (1) which are essential to the
conservation of the species and (2) which may require special
management considerations or protection. For these areas, critical
habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best
scientific and commercial data available, those physical or biological
features that are essential to the conservation of the species (such as
space, food, cover, and protected habitat). In identifying those
physical and biological features within an area, we focus on the
principal biological or physical constituent elements (primary
constituent elements such as roost sites, nesting grounds, seasonal
wetlands, water quality, tide, soil type) that are essential to the
conservation of the species. Primary constituent elements are the
elements of physical or biological features that together provide for a
species' life-history processes and are essential to the conservation
of the species.
Under the second prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
we can designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical
area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a
determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the
species. For example, an area currently occupied by the species but
that was not occupied at the time of listing may be essential to the
conservation of the species and may be included in the critical habitat
designation. We designate critical habitat in areas outside the
geographical area occupied by a species only when a designation limited
to its range would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the
species.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on
the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.
Further, our Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered
Species Act (published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34271)), the Information Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L.
106-554; H.R. 5658)), and our associated Information Quality
Guidelines, provide criteria, establish procedures, and provide
guidance to ensure that our decisions are based on the best scientific
data available. They require our biologists, to the extent consistent
with the Act and with the use of the best scientific data available, to
use primary and original sources of information as the basis for
recommendations to designate critical habitat.
When we are determining which areas should be designated as
critical habitat, our primary source of information is generally the
information developed during the listing process for the species.
Additional information sources may include the recovery plan for the
species, articles in peer-reviewed journals, conservation plans
developed by States and counties, scientific status surveys and
studies, biological assessments, other unpublished materials, or
experts' opinions or personal knowledge.
Habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to another
over time. In addition, our knowledge of species' locations and habitat
requirements are incomplete. We recognize that critical habitat
designated at a particular point in time may not include all of the
habitat areas that we may later determine are necessary for the
recovery of the species. For these reasons, a critical habitat
designation does not signal that habitat outside the designated area is
unimportant or may not be needed for recovery of the species. Areas
that are important to the conservation of the species, both inside and
outside the critical habitat
[[Page 8463]]
designation, will continue to be subject to: (1) Conservation actions
implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act, (2) regulatory
protections afforded by the requirement in section 7(a)(2) of the Act
for Federal agencies to insure their actions are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened
species, and (3) the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act if actions
occurring in these areas may affect the species. Federally funded or
permitted projects affecting listed species outside their designated
critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy findings in some
cases. These protections and conservation tools will continue to
contribute to recovery of this species. Similarly, critical habitat
designations made on the basis of the best available information at the
time of designation will not control the direction and substance of
future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans (HCPs), or other
species conservation planning efforts if new information available at
the time of these planning efforts calls for a different outcome.
Physical or Biological Features
In accordance with sections 3(5)(A)(i) and 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act
and regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas within the
geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing to
designate as critical habitat, we consider the physical or biological
features essential to the conservation of the species and which may
require special management considerations or protection. These include,
but are not limited to:
(1) Space for individual and population growth and for normal
behavior;
(2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or
physiological requirements;
(3) Cover or shelter;
(4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing (or development)
of offspring; and
(5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are
representative of the historical, geographical, and ecological
distributions of a species.
We derive the specific physical or biological features essential
for the nine Bexar County invertebrates from studies of this species'
habitat, ecology, and life history as described in the Critical Habitat
section of the proposed rule to designate critical habitat published in
the Federal Register on February 22, 2011 (76 FR 9872), and in the
information presented below. Additional information can be found in the
final listing rule published in the Federal Register on December 26,
2000 (65 FR 81419), and the Bexar County Karst Invertebrates Recovery
Plan (Service 2011). We have determined that each of the nine Bexar
County invertebrates require the physical or biological features
described below.
Space for Individual and Population Growth and for Normal Behavior
The nine Bexar County invertebrates are terrestrial troglobites
that require underground passages with stable temperatures (Howarth
1983, p. 373; Dunlap 1995, p. 76) and constant, high humidity (Barr
1968, p. 47; Mitchell 1971a, p. 250). In addition to the larger cave
passages that are accessible by humans where the species are collected,
the species also need mesocaverns (tiny voids that are connected to
larger cave passages) (Howarth 1983, p. 371), which provide additional
habitat to sustain viable populations of the species (White 2006, pp.
100-101). During temperature extremes, small mesocavernous spaces
connected to caves may have more favorable humidity and temperature
levels than the cave (Howarth 1983, p. 371); however, the abundance of
food may be less in mesocaverns than in the larger cave passages.
Therefore, the nine Bexar County invertebrates may spend the majority
of their time in mesocaverns, only leaving during temporary forays into
the larger cave passages to forage (Howarth 1987, p. 377). Based on the
information above, we identify karst-forming rock containing
subterranean spaces (caves and connected mesocaverns) with stable
temperatures, high humidities (near saturation), and suitable
substrates (spaces between and underneath rocks for foraging and
sheltering) to be a physical and biological feature needed by these
species.
Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or Other Nutritional or
Physiological Requirements
Water
The nine Bexar County invertebrates need clean water that is free
of pollutants to maintain stable humidity and temperatures. To maintain
stable humidity, the amount of clean water varies depending on the size
of the drainage basin, caves, and mesocaverns. Water enters the karst
ecosystem through surface and subsurface drainage basins. Well-
developed pathways, such as cave openings and fractures, rapidly
transport water through the karst with little or no purification. Caves
are susceptible to pollution from contaminated water entering the
ground because karst has little capacity for self-purification. The
route that has the greatest potential to carry water-borne contaminants
into the karst ecosystem is through the drainage basins that supply
water to the ecosystem. Because cave fauna require material washed in
through entrances (including human inaccessible cracks), and because
they require generally high humidity, it is essential to have drainage
basins with unpolluted water. The surface drainage basin consists of
the cave entrance and other surface input sources, such as neighboring
sinkholes and soil percolation. The subsurface or groundwater drainage
basin includes mesocaverns, as well as subterranean streams that have a
connection to the surface but that connection is often not observable
from the surface. The surface and subsurface drainage basins do not
necessarily overlap, and they may be of different size and direction
(Veni 2003, pp. 7-8).
In conclusion, we identify clean surface water that flows into the
karst features to be a physical and biological feature needed by these
species. Sources may include runoff that flows into the caves'
entrances or associated features through sinkholes or fractures, and
through-ground flows via fractures, conduits, and passages.
Surface Plant and Animal Communities
The nine Bexar County invertebrates need healthy surface plant and
animal communities in areas around and over the karst they occupy (see
discussion under Background). Surface vegetation provides nutrients
that support trogloxene (species that regularly inhabit caves for
refuge, but return to the surface to feed) and accidental species
(those that wander in or are trapped in a cave) and provides nutrients
through leaf litter and root masses that grow directly into caves
(Howarth 1983, p. 373; Jackson et al. 1999, p. 11387). Because the nine
Bexar County invertebrates are at the top of their food chain (Service
2011c, p.7), habitat changes that affect their food sources (including
plants and cave crickets) can affect them (Culver et al. 2000, p. 395).
Surface vegetation also protects the subsurface environment against
drastic changes in the temperature and moisture regime. It serves to
filter pollutants (to a limited degree) before they enter the karst
system and protects against nonnative species invasions (Biological
Advisory Team 1990, p. 38).
Surface invertebrates provide food for trogloxenes, such as cave
crickets, bats, toads, and frogs. Other animals wash or accidentally
stumble into caves and are food sources for cave-limited species. A
[[Page 8464]]
healthy, native arthropod community may also better stave off fire ants
(Porter et al. 1988, p. 914), which pose a threat to the karst
ecosystem.
Cave crickets are an important source of nutrient input for karst
ecosystems (Barr 1968, p. 48; Reddell 1993, p. 2). The cave crickets
forage on the surface at night and roost in the cave during the day.
Cave crickets provide food for karst species, which feed on their eggs,
young, and feces (Mitchell 1971b, p. 250; Barr 1968, pp. 51-53; Poulson
et al. 1995, p. 26). Many of the vertebrate species that occasionally
use caves bring in a significant amount of energy in the form of scat,
nesting material, and carcasses.
Natural quantities of plants and animals are an important part of a
functioning ecosystem. Therefore, based on the information above, we
identify a healthy surface community of plants (for example, juniper-
oak woodland) and animals (for example, cave crickets) living in and
near the karst feature that provides nutrient input and protects the
karst ecosystem from adverse effects (nonnative species invasions,
contaminants, and fluctuations in temperature and humidity), as being a
essential biological feature.
Primary Constituent Elements for the Nine Bexar County Invertebrates
Under the Act and its implementing regulations, we are required to
identify the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the nine Bexar County invertebrates in areas occupied
at the time of listing, focusing on the features' primary constituent
elements. We consider primary constituent elements (PCEs) to be the
elements of physical or biological features that together provide for a
species' life-history processes and are essential to the conservation
of the species.
Based on our current knowledge of the physical or biological
features and habitat characteristics required to sustain the species'
life-history processes, we determine that the PCEs specific to each of
the nine Bexar County invertebrates are:
(1) Karst-forming rock containing subterranean spaces (caves and
connected mesocaverns) with stable temperatures, high humidities (near
saturation), and suitable substrates (for example, spaces between and
underneath rocks for foraging and sheltering) that are free of
contaminants and
(2) Surface and subsurface sources (such as plants and their roots,
fruits, and leaves, and animal (e.g., cave cricket) eggs, feces, and
carcasses) that provide nutrient input into the karst ecosystem.
With this designation of critical habitat, we intend to identify
the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of
the species, through the identification of the appropriate existing or
restorable quantity and spatial arrangement of the features' primary
constituent elements sufficient to support the life-history processes
of the species. All units designated as critical habitat are currently
occupied by one or more of the nine Bexar County invertebrates and some
contain the primary constituent elements in the appropriate quantity
and spatial arrangement sufficient to support the life-history needs of
the species. Others are degraded, and some may never reach recovery
criteria for the species.
Special Management Considerations or Protection
When designating critical habitat, we assess the physical or
biological features within the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time of listing that are essential to the conservation
of the species and which may require special management considerations
or protection.
The Bexar County human population is projected to increase 13.8
percent from 2010 to 2020, and 45.2 percent by 2050 (San Antonio
Planning Department 2005, p. 1). Most of the threats to the nine Bexar
County invertebrates and their PCEs are the result of this continued
rapid population growth and associated urbanization. Threats include:
Filling and collapsing caves; altering drainage patterns, decreasing
water infiltration, and drying karst or increasing flooding; removing
native vegetation and replacing it with impervious cover and nonnative
plants; reducing nutrient input into caves; changing temperatures;
decreasing humidity; contaminating habitat as a result of human
activities in the surface and subsurface drainage basins of caves and
in adjacent karst areas; increasing human visitation, resulting in
alteration of the cave habitat and direct mortality of listed species;
and increasing infestation by fire ants, a predator and competitor that
can cause direct predation on and competition with trogloxenes like
cave crickets, ultimately reducing nutrient input into the cave.
In 2000, 437 caves were known in Bexar County, and about 109 of the
437 had been sealed or destroyed, including some that had not been
biologically studied, but by observation of fauna, had likely contained
some of the listed species. Currently, 523 caves are registered in
Bexar County, with 103 of those confirmed as sealed or destroyed, and
about 40 more suspected as sealed or destroyed, but which need to be
visited for confirmation (Veni 2011, pers. comm.).
Construction and development activities that may not destroy a cave
entrance can still result in collapse of the cave ceiling or other
adverse effects on the karst environment. On ranch land or in rural
areas, it is not uncommon to use caves as trash dumps (Culver 1986, p.
434; Reddell 1993, p. 2) or to cover the entrances to prevent livestock
from falling in (Elliott 2000, pp. 374-375). These activities can be
detrimental to the karst ecosystem by causing direct destruction of
habitat or altering the natural passage of organisms, water, detritus,
and other organic matter into a cave. Quarrying of limestone and road
base material is a widespread activity that can remove vegetation and
destroy karst habitat. A number of occupied caves in Bexar County have
been severely impacted in the past, and an examination of recent aerial
photography reveals recent impacts to karst habitat near several other
occupied caves.
Cave organisms are adapted to live in a narrow range of temperature
and humidity. To sustain these conditions, both natural surface and
subsurface flow of water and nutrients should be maintained. Decreases
in water flow or infiltration can result in excessive drying and may
slow decomposition of organic matter, while increases can cause
flooding that drowns air-breathing species and carries away available
nutrients. Alterations to surface topography, including decreasing or
increasing soil depth or adding nonnative fill, can change the nutrient
flow into the cave, and affect the cave community (Howarth 1983, p.
381). Changes in the amount of impermeable cover, collection of water
in devices like storm sewers, increased erosion and sedimentation, and
irrigation and sprinkler systems can affect water flow to caves and the
surrounding karst. Changes in the quantity of water, its organic
content, the timing and extent of flood pulses, or droughts may
negatively impact the listed species.
Karst ecosystems are heavily reliant on surface plant and animal
communities to maintain nutrient input, reduce sedimentation (in the
case of plants), and resist exotic and invasive species. As the surface
around a cave entrance or over the associated karst ecosystem is
developed, native plant communities are often replaced with impermeable
cover or exotic plants from
[[Page 8465]]
nurseries. The abundance and diversity of native animals may decline
due to decreased food and habitat, combined with increased competition
and predation from urban, exotic, and pet species. As surface plant and
animal communities are destroyed, food and habitat once available to
trogloxenes decreases. Destruction of plant communities can lead to
increased erosion that causes sedimentation within caves. Where native
woodland and grassland communities are present, a perimeter area is
needed to shield the core vegetation habitat from impacts associated
with edge effects or disturbance from adjacent urban development
(Lovejoy et al. 1986, p. 284; Yahner 1988, pp. 333-334). Effects from
such impacts can include increases in invasive species and pollutants,
and changes in microclimates, which can adversely affect the listed
species by impacting nutrient cycling processes important in cave/karst
dynamics.
Much of the habitat occupied by the Bexar County invertebrates is
particularly sensitive to groundwater contamination, because little or
no filtration occurs, and water penetrates rapidly through bedrock
conduits (White 1988, p. 149). The ranges of these species are becoming
increasingly urbanized, and, thereby, they are becoming more
susceptible to contaminants including sewage, oil, fertilizers,
pesticides, herbicides, seepage from landfills, pipeline leaks, or
leaks in storage structures and retaining ponds. Activities on the
surface, such as disposing of toxic chemicals or motor oil, can
contaminate caves (White 1988, p. 388). Materials like cleaning agents,
industrial chemicals, and heavy metals can also easily infiltrate
subterranean ecosystems by the pollutants leaching into the karst, for
example, from leaking underground storage tanks, or by being washed
into the surface or subsurface drainage area. Contamination of karst
habitat can also occur from the deposition of air pollutants in the
surface or subsurface drainage area and improper disposal of litter,
motor oil, batteries, or other household products in or near caves
(White 1988, pp. 399-400).
Continued urbanization will increase the likelihood that karst
ecosystems are polluted by contamination from leaks and spills, which
often have occurred in Bexar County. The Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality (TCEQ 2010, pp. TCEQ--5 to TCEQ--8) summarized
information on groundwater contamination reported by a number of
agencies, and listed 109 groundwater contamination cases that occurred
in Bexar County between 1980 and 2000; the majority of them were spills
or leaks of petroleum products. Groundwater contamination poses a
threat to entire karst ecosystems and is particularly difficult to
manage because pollutants can originate far from the sensitive karst
site and flow rapidly through the subsurface (White 1988, pp. 387-388).
Fire ants are a pervasive, nonnative ant species originally
introduced to the United States from South America over 50 years ago
and are an aggressive predator and competitor that has spread across
the southern United States. They often replace native species, and
evidence shows that overall arthropod diversity, as well as species
richness and abundance, decreases in infested areas. Fire ants pose a
threat to the listed invertebrates in Bexar County through direct
predation and competition with native species (such as cave crickets)
for food resources. This threat is exacerbated by activities that
accompany urbanization and that result in soil disturbance and
disruption to native ant communities (refer to previous detailed
discussion in Background).
Maintaining native vegetation communities greater than 12 ac (5 ha)
may help sustain native ant populations and further deter fire ant
infestations (Porter et al. 1988, p. 914; 1991, p. 869). On Camp Bullis
Military Reservation, in Bexar and Comal Counties, Texas, caves are
located in large expanses of undeveloped land. Although there is some
ground disturbance in portions of the area, caves on Camp Bullis had
less fire ant infestation than caves in more urbanized areas, even
prior to beginning a fire ant treatment regime (Veni and Associates
1999, p. 55). In addition, Suarez et al. (1998, p. 2047) found that
protection of a core area zone that is at least 330 ft (100 m) wide
helps to reduce the severity of infestations of Argentine ant
(Linepithema humile), a species similar to the fire ant.
Karst invertebrates in central Texas are especially susceptible to
fire ant predation because most caves are relatively short and shallow.
Fire ants have been found within and near many caves in central Texas
and have been observed feeding on dead troglobites, cave crickets, and
other species within caves (Elliott 1992, p. 13; 1994, p. 15; 2000, pp.
668, 678; Reddell 1993a, p. 10; Taylor et al. 2003, p. 3). Hot and dry
weather may also encourage fire ants to move into caves during summer
months, and cold weather may cause them to seek refuge or prey in the
caves during the winter. Besides direct predation, fire ants threaten
listed invertebrates by reducing the nutrient input that fuels the
karst ecosystem. Taylor et al. (2003, p. 3) found that cave crickets
often arrived before fire ants at baits placed above ground at night,
but the arrival of fire ants corresponded to the departure of cave
crickets, indicating competition for at least some food resources.
Lavoie et al. (2007, p. 126) also reported that cave crickets and fire
ants ate the same baits. Of 36 caves visited during status surveys for
the nine Bexar County karst invertebrates, fire ants were found in 26
of them (Reddell 1993a, p. 32).
Models suggest climate change may cause the southwestern United
States to experience the greatest temperature increase of any area in
the lower 48 States (IPCC 2007, p. 15). There is also high confidence
that many semi-arid areas like the western United States will suffer a
decrease in water resources due to climate change (IPCC 2007, p. 16),
as a result of less annual mean precipitation and reduced length of
snow season and snow depth (Christensen et al. 2007, p. 850). These
predictions underscore the importance of special management to maintain
karst moisture levels to ensure survival of the nine invertebrates.
In summary, threats to the nine Bexar County invertebrates include
clearing of vegetation for commercial or residential development, road
building, quarrying, or other purposes. Infestation by nonnative
vegetation causes adverse changes in the plant and animal community and
possibly in moisture availability. An increase in fire ants can occur
with development and cause competition with and predation on other
invertebrates in the karst ecosystem. In addition, filling cave
features for construction, ranching, or other purposes can adversely
affect the listed invertebrate species by reducing nutrient input,
reducing small mammal access, and changing moisture regimes. Excavation
for construction or operation of quarries can directly destroy karst
features occupied by any of the nine Bexar County invertebrates,
including the mesocaverns they use. Examples of management that would
alleviate these threats include: (1) Protecting vegetation around
occupied karst features and overlying connected mesocaverns; (2)
protecting subsurface karst habitat to allow movement of karst
invertebrates through caves and mesocaverns; (3) controlling nonnative
fire ants around cave features and within the karst cricket foraging
area; (4) preventing unauthorized access to karst features by
installing fencing and cave gates; and (5) keeping the surface and
subsurface areas surrounding cave features and associated mesocaverns
free from sources of contamination.
[[Page 8466]]
Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat
As required by section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act, we used the best
scientific and commercial data available to designate critical habitat.
We reviewed available information pertaining to the habitat
requirements of these species. In accordance with the Act and its
implementing regulation at 50 CFR 424.12(e), we considered whether
designating additional areas--outside those currently occupied as well
as those occupied at the time of listing--are necessary to ensure the
conservation of the species. We are designating critical habitat in
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time
of listing in 2000. We also are designating specific areas outside the
geographical area known to be occupied by the species at the time of
listing, which are currently occupied, because we have determined that
such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.
We relied on information in presence/absence survey reports
submitted during project consultations with the Service, annual reports
on research and recovery activities conducted under section 10(a)(1)(A)
scientific permits, annual section 10(a)(1)(B) reports, section 6
species status reports, and literature published in peer-reviewed
journals. We also used information from the proposed (67 FR 55063;
August 27, 2002) and final (68 FR 17155; April 8, 2003) critical
habitat rules, draft recovery plan (Service 2008), final recovery plan
(Service 2011), and other information in our files. Critical habitat
units were delineated by creating approximate areas for the units by
screen-digitizing polygons (map units) using ArcMap (Environmental
Systems Research Institute, Inc.). We defined the boundaries of each
unit based on the criteria below:
(1) We identified all areas known to be occupied by the species. We
used verified identifications of specimens by recognized species
experts. In the case of Madla Cave meshweaver, we also used genetic
identification (Paquin and Hedin 2004, p. 3244).
(2) We included the cave footprint with the surface and subsurface
drainage areas of the cave, where known.
(3) We included a cave cricket foraging area that is a 344-ft (105-
m) circle around the cave entrance (Taylor et al. 2005, p. 97).
(4) We also included an area of at least 100 ac (40 ha) around the
cave footprint of undisturbed or restorable vegetation as recommended
by the Bexar County Karst Invertebrates Recovery Team (Recovery Team)
(Service 2008, pp. B1-5). The Recovery Team used an expert opinion poll
to query members about species conservation needs, relying on goals
identified by the recovery team for maintaining a healthy karst
ecosystem for the nine invertebrates. Recovery Team members ranked a
preserve size of 60 to 90 ac (16 to 36 ha) with the occupied karst
feature near its center as having the highest probability of achieving
each goal (Service 2008, p. B-5). Specified goals included maintaining
high humidity, stable temperatures, high water quality of surface and
subsurface drainage basins, and good connectivity with mesocaverns for
population dynamics of troglobites. The Preserve Design Recommendations
document cited in the final recovery plan increased the preserve size
to a minimum of 100 ac (40 ha) for a high-quality KFA based on peer-
review comments (Service 2011, p. 3). Therefore, we used a circle
encompassing 100 ac (40 ha), with the occupied feature near the center
as a guide, for delineation of critical habitat, because that area and
configuration are likely to provide the necessary nutrient input,
maintain moisture, protect a substantial amount of the mesocaverns that
are likely connected to the occupied karst feature, and remain viable
over the long term. In units that are undeveloped, it will also protect
a diverse assemblage of vegetation. We also used this target size for
units that are at least partially developed because we believe that
remaining vegetation can provide nutrients, moisture, and mesocavern
protection for the listed species. Although such low-quality units may
not count toward the recovery of the species, they do serve to increase
the probability the species is likely to survive.
We used a circle with an area of 100 ac (40 ha) as a guide for
mapping the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the nine Bexar County invertebrates. We positioned the
circle with the occupied feature at the center. Then we changed the
shape of the edge to maintain at least 100 ac (40 ha). We gave
preference to including undisturbed, existing or restorable vegetation
in Karst Zone 1; the surface and subsurface drainage basins; and the
cave cricket foraging areas of the occupied features. We did not
include area for cave cricket foraging if it was on the other side of
an urban edge, such as a major roadway, because such edges act as
barriers to cricket movement. When the delineations around individual
caves overlapped, we included those caves in the same unit.
In this designation, we included areas that possess those physical
or biological features essential to the conservation of each of the
species and that may require special management considerations or
protection. Even though the nine Bexar County invertebrates spend their
entire lives underground, we included specific surface features when
identifying critical habitat units, because they are important drainage
links into the caves, and because surface habitat is needed to support
the plant and animal communities upon which the invertebrates depend
for nutrients.
We identified critical habitat units that are known to be occupied
based on one or more surveys that resulted in the collection of a
specimen from the karst feature and verification of a species' identity
by a taxonomic expert. Some of the rarer species are difficult to
collect, and it may take many surveys over multiple years to detect
even the more common species (Krejca and Weckerly 2007, p. 286).
Therefore, we included all locations with historic records of species
occupancy, regardless of date.
We determined the units based on the presence of both of the
defined PCEs and the kind, amount, and quality of habitat associated
with those occurrences. We only designated areas that include both PCEs
in close enough proximity to each other to be used by the invertebrate
population in the area. Some of the units contain the appropriate
quantity and distribution of PCEs to support the life cycle stages we
have determined as essential to the conservation of the species. In
other units or portions of units, one or both of the PCEs have been
degraded. We included such units because the portion of the PCEs that
are present can support the listed species to some extent, even though
the PCEs have been degraded. For example, surface habitat without a
healthy plant and animal community can continue to support listed
invertebrates below the surface for a limited time, and clean water
from modified surface areas can provide the humidity needed by the
listed invertebrates.
When determining critical habitat boundaries within this final
rule, we made every effort to avoid including developed areas, such as
lands covered by buildings, pavement, and other structures that lack
the surface physical or biological features for the nine Bexar County
invertebrates, and which do not contain the subsurface physical or
biological features to support life-history processes essential for the
conservation of the invertebrates. The
[[Page 8467]]
scale of the maps we prepared under the parameters for publication
within the Code of Federal Regulations may not reflect the non-
inclusion of such developed lands in critical habitat. Therefore, a
Federal action involving these lands will not trigger section 7
consultations with respect to critical habitat and the requirement of
no adverse modification unless the specific action would affect the
physical or biological features in the adjacent critical habitat.
However, in some instances, we included some developed areas that
had partially degraded surface features. We included these developed
lands because they contain the subsurface physical or biological
features, such as karst-forming rock containing subterranean spaces,
and enough of the surface physical or biological features in close
enough proximity to support life-history processes essential for the
conservation of the invertebrates. The scale of the maps we prepared
under the parameters for publication within the Code of Federal
Regulations may not reflect the non-inclusion of developed lands.
We are designating as critical habitat lands that we have
determined were occupied at the time of listing and contain sufficient
physical or biological features to support life-history processes
essential for the conservation of the species, and lands outside of the
geographical area not known to be occupied at the time of listing,
which are currently occupied, and which we have determined are
essential for the conservation of Bexar County invertebrates.
Final Critical Habitat Designation
We are designating 30 units as critical habitat for the nine Bexar
County invertebrates. The critical habitat areas described below
constitute our best assessment at this time of areas that meet the
definition of critical habitat. Table 2 lists the occupied units.
Table 2--Occupancy by One or More of the Nine by Designated Critical
Habitat Units
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Known to be occupied Currently
Unit at time of listing? occupied?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1a............................ Yes................... Yes.
1b............................ Yes................... Yes.
1c............................ Yes................... Yes.
1d............................ Yes................... Yes.
1e............................ No.................... Yes.
1f............................ No.................... Yes.
2............................. Yes................... Yes.
3............................. Yes................... Yes.
4............................. Yes................... Yes.
5............................. Yes................... Yes.
6............................. Yes................... Yes.
7............................. Yes................... Yes.
8............................. Yes................... Yes.
9............................. Yes................... Yes.
10a........................... Yes................... Yes.
10b........................... Yes................... Yes.
11e........................... No.................... Yes.
12............................ Yes................... Yes.
13............................ Yes................... Yes.
14............................ Yes................... Yes.
15............................ Yes................... Yes.
16............................ Yes................... Yes.
17............................ Yes................... Yes.
19............................ Yes................... Yes.
20............................ Yes................... Yes.
21............................ No.................... Yes.
22............................ No.................... Yes.
23............................ No.................... Yes.
25............................ No.................... Yes.
26............................ No.................... Yes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The approximate area of each critical habitat unit is shown in
Table 3.
Table 3--Unit Number, Known Occupied Caves, Unit Size, Land Ownership, and Listed Species That Are Known To
Occur Within Each Critical Habitat Unit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Known occupied Size of unit in acres Listed species
Unit caves in unit (Hectares) Land ownership type in unit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1a................. Bone Pile Cave, 144 ac (58 ha)............. State...................... R. infernalis,
Surprise Sink. C. madla.
1b................. Government 100 ac (40 ha)............. State...................... C. vespera, N.
Canyon Bat Cave. microps, R.
exilis, R.
infernalis.
1c................. Lost Pothole 100 ac (40 ha)............. State...................... C. madla.
Cave.
1d................. Dancing Rattler 225 ac (91 ha)............. State...................... C. madla, R.
Cave, Lithic exilis, R.
Ridge Cave, infernalis.
Hackberry Sink.
1e................. Canyon Ranch 410 ac (166 ha)............ State, Private, City....... R. infernalis,
Pit*, R. exilis, B.
Continental venyivi, C.
Park Cave, madla.
Creek Bank
Cave, Fat Man's
Nightmare
Cave*, Pig
Cave, San
Antonio Ranch
Pit, Scenic
Overlook Cave*,
Tight Cave.
1f................. 10K Cave........ 100 ac (40 ha)............. State...................... R. infernalis.
2.................. Logan's Cave, 180 ac (73 ha)............. Private.................... C. madla, R.
Madla's Drop exilis, R.
Cave. infernalis.
3.................. Helotes 85 ac (34 ha).............. Private.................... C. madla, R.
Blowhole*, exilis, R.
Helotes Hilltop infernalis, B.
Cave*. venyivi.
4.................. Kamikazi Cricket 210 ac (85 ha)............. Private.................... R. exilis, R.
Cave, Mattke infernalis.
Cave, Scorpion
Cave.
5.................. Christmas Cave.. 100 ac (40 ha)............. Private.................... C. madla, R.
exilis, R.
infernalis, B.
venyivi.
6.................. John Wagner 96 ac (39 ha).............. Private, City.............. C. madla, R.
Ranch Cave No. exilis, R.
3*. infernalis.
7.................. Young Cave No. 1 100 ac (40 ha)............. Private.................... R. exilis.
8.................. Three Fingers 243 ac (98 ha)............. Private, City.............. C. madla, R.
Cave, Hills and infernalis, R.
Dales Pit*, exilis.
Robber's Cave.
9.................. Mastodon Pit, 105 ac (42 ha)............. State, Private............. C. madla, R.
Feature No. 50, exilis.
La Cantera Cave
No. 1*, La
Cantera Cave
No. 2*.
10a................ Low Priority 38 ac (15 ha).............. City, Private.............. R. infernalis.
Cave \1\.
10b................ Flying Buzzworm 35 ac (14 ha).............. City....................... R. infernalis.
Cave \1\.
11e................ Blanco Cave..... 89 ac (36 ha).............. Private.................... R. exilis.
12................. Hairy Tooth 166 ac (67 ha)............. Private, City.............. R. exilis.
Cave, Ragin'
Cajun Cave.
13................. Black Cat Cave.. 100 ac (41 ha)............. Private.................... R. exilis.
[[Page 8468]]
14................. Game Pasture 292 ac (118 ha)............ Private.................... R. infernalis.
Cave No. 1,
King Toad Cave,
Stevens Ranch
Trash Hole
Cave, F2, F4.
15................. Braken Bat Cave, 217 ac (88 ha)............. Private.................... C. venii, R.
Isopit, Obvious infernalis.
Little Cave,
Wurzbach Bat
Cave.
16................. Caracol Creek 103 ac (42 ha)............. Private.................... R. infernalis.
Coon Cave.
17................. Madla's Cave*... 96 ac (39 ha).............. Private.................... C. madla, R.
infernalis.
19................. Genesis Cave.... 81 ac (33 ha).............. Private.................... R. infernalis.
20................. Robber Baron 247 ac (100 ha)............ Private.................... T.
Cave. cokendolpheri,
C. baronia.
21................. Hornet's Last 154 ac (62 ha)............. City, Private.............. R. exilis.
Laugh Pit, Kick
Start Cave,
Springtail
Crevice.
22................. Breathless Cave. 100 ac (40 ha)............. City, Private.............. C. madla.
23................. Crownridge 100 ac (40 ha)............. City, Private.............. R. infernalis.
Canyon Cave.
25................. OB3............. 100 ac (40 ha)............. Private.................... C. baronia.
26................. Max and Roberts 100 ac (40 ha)............. Private.................... R. infernalis.
Cave.
-----------------------------------------------
Totals......... 59 caves, 30 4,216 ac (1,706 ha)........
Units.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Indicates caves and associated lands excluded from critical habitat designation under the La Cantera HCP in
accordance with section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
\1\ Cave is located on Camp Bullis; critical habitat is outside Camp Bullis.
Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding.
We present brief descriptions of the units, and reasons why they
meet the definition of critical habitat for each of the nine Bexar
County invertebrates, below.
Unit 1a
Unit 1a consists of 144 ac (58 ha) of State-owned land located in
northwestern Bexar County in the northwestern part of Government Canyon
State Natural Area (GCSNA) in the Government Canyon KFR. The GCSNA is
an area of approximately 8,622 ac (2,688 ha) owned and managed by the
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD). The GCSNA is accessible to
the public under certain restrictions. This unit is all undeveloped
woodland and is crossed by a wet weather stream and a trail. Unit 1a
contains Surprise Sink, which is occupied by Madla Cave meshweaver and
R. infernalis, and Bone Pile Cave, which is occupied by R. infernalis.
Surprise Sink was believed to be occupied by Government Canyon Bat Cave
spider, but further investigation showed that this identification could
not be confirmed (Ledford 2011, pp. 160-161). The caves in this unit
were occupied at the time of listing by each of the species listed
above, and the unit contains the features essential to the conservation
of each species (PCEs 1 and 2).
The features essential to the conservation of the species in this
unit may require special management considerations or protection to
address the main threat in this unit, which is infestation of fire
ants. The GCSNA currently has a management plan in place that includes
treating for fire ants and managing for the benefit of the Madla Cave
meshweaver and R. infernalis. The treatment of fire ants only
temporarily alleviates the threat, so special management is required in
perpetuity to remove the threat.
The unit was delineated by drawing a circle with an area of 100 ac
(40 ha) around each of the two caves and connecting the edges of the
overlapping circles. Unit 1a is all Karst Zone 1.
Unit 1b
Unit 1b consists of 100 ac (40 ha) of State-owned land located in
northwest Bexar County in the western portion of the GCSNA in the
Government Canyon KFR. Land within the unit consists of undeveloped
woodland. However, there are several one-lane gravel roads that serve
primarily as pedestrian trails within the State natural area. A small
portion of the vegetation appears to have been cleared for ranching
prior to TPWD ownership. The unit contains one cave, Government Canyon
Bat Cave, which is the only cave known to be occupied by the Government
Canyon Bat Cave meshweaver. The cave is also occupied by Government
Canyon Bat Cave spider, R. exilis, and R. infernalis. The Government
Canyon Bat Cave was occupied at the time of listing, and the unit
contains all the PCEs.
The main threat to species in this unit is infestation of fire
ants. The GCSNA currently has a management plan in place that includes
treating for fire ants and managing for the benefit of the species.
Because the treatment for fire ants only temporarily alleviates the
threat, special management is required in perpetuity.
The unit was delineated by drawing a circle with an area of 100 ac
(40 ha) around the cave. A small piece of Karst Zone 2 on the northern
part of the circle is included because removing it would increase the
edge effects. The remainder of Unit 1b is Karst Zone 1.
Unit 1c
Unit 1c consists of 100 ac (40 ha) of State-owned land located in
northwestern Bexar County in the central part of GCSNA in the
Government Canyon KFR. This unit is primarily undeveloped native
woodland that is crossed by a hiking trail. There is only one cave in
this unit, Lost Pothole Cave. The cave was occupied at the time of
listing, and the unit contains all the PCEs for the species. A small
amount of the woody vegetation in this unit has been cleared in the
past for ranching prior to TPWD ownership.
The main threat to species in the unit is infestation of fire ants.
GCSNA currently has a management plan in place that includes treating
for fire ants and managing for the benefit of the species. Because the
treatment for fire ants only temporarily alleviates the threat, special
management is required in perpetuity.
This unit was delineated by drawing a circle with an area of 100 ac
(40 ha) around the cave. Unit 1c is all Karst Zone 1.
[[Page 8469]]
Unit 1d
Unit 1d consists of 225 ac (91 ha) of State-owned land located in
northwestern Bexar County in the central part of the GCSNA in the
Government Canyon KFR. This unit is wooded and undeveloped. The unit is
primarily native vegetation, but small portions of the unit appear to
have been thinned in the past for ranching prior to TPWD ownership.
Unit 1d contains three caves: Dancing Rattler Cave, Lithic Ridge Cave,
and Hackberry Sink. The Lithic Ridge Cave is occupied by Madla Cave
meshweaver, R. exilis, and R. infernalis. The Dancing Rattler Cave and
Hackberry Sink are occupied by R. infernalis. The caves in this unit
were occupied at the time of listing, and the unit contains all the
PCEs for the species.
The main threat to the unit is infestation of fire ants. The GCSNA
currently has a management plan in place that includes treating for
fire ants. Because the treatment for fire ants only temporarily
alleviates the threat, special management is required in perpetuity.
This unit was delineated by drawing a circle with an area of 100 ac
(40 ha) around each of the caves and connecting the edges of the
overlapping circles. Unit 1d is all Karst Zone 1.
Unit 1e
Unit 1e consists of 410 ac (166 ha) in northwestern Bexar County
that includes the northeastern part of State-owned GCSNA, adjacent City
of San Antonio-owned land, and private land in the Government Canyon
KFR for the Madla Cave meshweaver, R. infernalis, R. exilis, and
Helotes mold beetle. About 64 ac (26 ha) of land managed under the La
Cantera HCP are not included in this designation of critical habitat
(see explanation below). The majority of Unit 1e consists of
undeveloped land, with the exception of several small private and
county roads. Woody vegetation has been thinned for ranching on a small
area of the northeastern part of the unit. Unit 1e contains eight
caves. Four caves are occupied by Madla Cave meshweaver (Fat Man's
Nightmare Cave, Pig Cave, San Antonio Ranch Pit, and Scenic Overlook
Cave). Fat Man's Nightmare Cave is also occupied by R. infernalis; Pig
Cave is also occupied by R. infernalis and R. exilis; San Antonio Ranch
Pit is occupied by R. infernalis, R. exilis, and Helotes mold beetle;
and Scenic Overlook Cave is occupied by R. infernalis and Helotes mold
beetle. The unit also contains Canyon Ranch Pit and Continental Park
Cave, which are occupied by R. infernalis; Creek Bank Cave, which is
occupied by R. exilis; and Tight Cave, which is occupied by R. exilis
and Helotes mold beetle.
The caves were likely occupied at the time of listing, but surveys
sufficient to detect the species were not conducted before the time of
listing. Since listing, the species has been found in the caves. Due to
the long lifespan of these critters, or lack of dispersal that occurs,
we assume they must have been there all along. Therefore, we are
considering these caves to be occupied at the time of listing. The unit
contains all the PCEs for the species. In addition, populations and
known occurrences are so low that all need to be conserved.
Special management is needed in this unit because of infestation of
fire ants and vandalism from unauthorized access. Five of the caves in
this unit are owned by GCSNA, and they currently have a management plan
in place that includes treating for fire ants and managing for the
benefit of the species. These five caves are San Antonio Ranch Pit, Pig
Cave, Creek Bank Cave, Tight Cave, and Continental Park Cave.
Three of the eight known occupied caves within this unit and their
associated preserve lands are part of the 75-ac (30-ha) Canyon Ranch
Preserve. The Canyon Ranch Preserve, which was acquired and is managed
by La Cantera under their HCP, contains Canyon Ranch Pit, Fat Man's
Nightmare Cave, and Scenic Overlook Cave. In accordance with the La
Cantera HCP, these three caves and the surrounding preserve lands will
be managed in perpetuity for the conservation of the species. In
accordance with section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we excluded from critical
habitat designation approximately 64 ac (26 ha) of the preserve from
this unit (see Exclusions section). When this unit was delineated,
there was an 11-ac (4-ha) portion of the 75-ac (30-ha) preserve that
fell outside the boundaries. Therefore, we excluded the approximately
64-ac (26-ha) portion of the preserve land that fell within the unit
boundary.
This unit was delineated by drawing a circle with an area of 100 ac
(40 ha) around each of the caves and generally connecting the edges of
the overlapping circles. Unit 1e is all Karst Zone 1.
Unit 1f
Unit 1f consists of 100 ac (40 ha) of State-owned land in northwest
Bexar County in the southeastern part of the GCSNA in the Government
Canyon KFR for R. infernalis. The unit is entirely native woodland, but
a small amount appears to have been cleared in the past for ranching
prior to TPWD ownership. It contains only one cave, which is named 10K
Cave. The cave was likely occupied at the time of listing, but surveys
sufficient to detect the species were not conducted prior to listing R.
infernalis. Since the time of listing, the species has been found in
the cave. Therefore, we are considering it to be occupied at the time
of listing. The unit contains both PCEs for the species. In addition,
populations and known occurrences are so low that all need to be
conserved. We believe 10K Cave is essential for the conservation of the
species. The unit contains all the PCEs for the species.
The major threat to Unit 1f is fire ant infestation. The GCSNA
currently has a management plan in place that includes controlling fire
ants, limiting access, monitoring the status of habitat, prohibiting
the use of pesticides, and constructing gates and fences.
This unit was delineated by drawing a circle with an area of 100 ac
(40 ha) around the cave. Unit 1f is all Karst Zone 1.
Unit 2
Unit 2 consists of 180 ac (73 ha) of private land located in
northwestern Bexar County north of Bandera Road and southeast of High
Bluff Road in the Helotes KFR. This unit contains a mix of large,
wooded tracts with several residential buildings, cleared areas, a
quarry on the southeastern edge, and private or county roads.
Unit 2 contains two caves. Madla's Drop Cave is occupied by Madla
Cave meshweaver and R. infernalis. Logan's Cave is occupied by R.
infernalis and R. exilis. These caves were occupied at the time of
listing, and the unit contains all the PCEs for the species. Two paved
roads cross the cave cricket foraging area of this unit and act as
barriers to cricket movement.
The features essential to the conservation of the species may
require special management considerations or protection, because of
residential development. Threats include the potential for destruction
of habitat from vandalism, contamination of the subsurface drainage
area of the unit, drying of karst, reduction of nutrient input, and
infestation of fire ants.
This unit was delineated by drawing a circle with an area of 100 ac
(40 ha) around each of the caves and generally connecting the edges of
the overlapping circles. Areas of Karst Zone 3 karst along the southern
portion of the unit were left out, and the unit was expanded outside
the circles in a small area to the east and to the southwest to include
the estimated subsurface drainage basin. Unit 2 is all Karst Zone 1.
[[Page 8470]]
Unit 3
Unit 3 consists of 110 ac (45 ha) of private land in northwestern
Bexar County, east of Bandera Road and northwest of Scenic Loop in the
Helotes KFR. About 25 ac (10 ha) of lands managed under the La Cantera
HCP are not included in this designation of critical habitat (see
explanation below). The unit contains relatively large, wooded tracts.
This unit contains two caves, Helotes Blowhole and Helotes Hilltop
Cave. Helotes Blowhole is occupied by Madla Cave meshweaver, R.
infernalis, and R. exilis. The Helotes Hilltop Cave is occupied by
Madla Cave meshweaver, R. exilis, and Helotes mold beetle. Both caves
were occupied at the time of listing, and the unit contains all the
PCEs for the species.
Special management is needed in this unit because of the potential
for destruction of habitat from vandalism, contamination of the
subsurface drainage area of the unit, and infestation of fire ants. In
addition, a small portion of the northern side of the unit has been
developed with residential homes. Unit 3 contains several small
residential roads and is bordered on its southwestern edge by Bandera
Road, a four-lane divided highway. This unit does not include the
entire 344-ft (105-m) cave cricket foraging area around Helotes Hilltop
Cave in Karst Zone 3, because a paved road creates a barrier to cave
cricket movement. The road is located in Karst Zone 3, and the area
east of the road is not included in critical habitat.
This unit was delineated by drawing a circle with an area of 100 ac
(40 ha) around each of the caves and generally connecting the edges of
the overlapping circles. Because of the large amount of Karst Zone 3 to
the east was left out, we expanded the western circle to the north and
northwest in Karst Zone 1 to the boundary proposed for the unit. Some
areas of Zone 3 are included along the eastern boundary of the unit to
include more of the cave cricket foraging area for Helotes Hilltop
Cave. Areas of Zone 3 along all but a part of the northern portion of
the unit were left out of this designation. The rest of Unit 3 is Karst
Zone 1.
In accordance with section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we excluded from
critical habitat designation approximately 25 ac (10 ha) of land
surrounding the caves under the La Cantera HCP (see Exclusions
section). These caves and the surrounding preserve lands will be
managed in perpetuity for the conservation of the species. The
remainder of the unit needs special management because of the presence
of roads and residential development.
Unit 4
Unit 4 consists of 210 ac (85 ha) of private land in northwestern
Bexar County, west of the intersection of Scenic Loop and Cross XD Road
in the UTSA KFR. Tower View Road and Cash Mountain Road cross the
northern part of the unit, and Rafter S and Cross XD cross the southern
part. Unit 4 contains three caves. Kamikaze Cricket Cave is occupied by
R. exilis and R. infernalis. Mattke and Scorpion Caves are occupied by
R. infernalis. These three caves were occupied at the time of listing,
and parts of the unit contain all the PCEs for the species.
Special management is needed in this unit because of the potential
for destruction of habitat from vandalism and potential future
development, contamination of the subsurface drainage area of the unit,
drying of karst areas, reduction of nutrient input, and infestation of
fire ants. In addition, this unit contains several residential roads,
but no major roadways or highways. Lands surrounding Unit 4 consist
mainly of relatively large, residential tracts. The unit requires
special management because of threats from existing and potential
future residential development.
This unit was delineated by drawing a circle with an area of 100 ac
(40 ha) around each of the caves and generally connecting the edges of
the overlapping circles. Portions on the western edges of the circles
were cut out because they are Karst Zone 3. The circles were extended
outside the circles to the east and northeast to include undisturbed
vegetation. Some areas of Karst Zone 3 are included along the western
edges of the cave cricket foraging areas of Kamikaze Cricket and Mattke
Caves. The remainder of the unit is Karst Zone 1 except for a small
finger of Karst Zone 3, which is included to reduce edge effects.
Unit 5
Unit 5 consists of 100 ac (40 ha) of private land in northwestern
Bexar County, northwest of Cedar Crest Drive and north of Madla Ranch
Road in the Helotes KFR. The unit contains a large tract of undeveloped
woodland and several smaller, wooded tracts developed with homes and
associated residential roads. This unit contains one cave, Christmas
Cave, which is occupied by R. exilis, R. infernalis, Helotes mold
beetle, and Madla Cave meshweaver. The cave was occupied at the time of
listing, and the unit contains all the PCEs for the species.
The unit requires special management because of the presence of
residential development and impending future development. Threats
include the potential for destruction of habitat from development and
vandalism, contamination of the subsurface drainage area of the unit,
reduction of moisture and nutrients, and infestation of fire ants.
The unit was delineated by drawing a circle with an area of 100 ac
(40 ha) around the cave. Large areas of Zone 3 were then removed from
the southeast portion, but a small amount of Karst Zone 3 is included
along the southeastern boundary of the unit to include the cave cricket
foraging area for Christmas Cave. The rest of Unit 5 is Karst Zone 1.
The boundary circle was expanded to include more Karst Zone 1 along its
northeast edge, around the northwest side, and to the southwest edge to
include 100 ac (40 ha) of undisturbed vegetation. However, there are
homes and associated roads within the cave cricket foraging area of the
cave.
Unit 6
Unit 6 consists of 96 ac (39 ha) of private and City of San
Antonio-owned land located in northwestern Bexar County, bordered to
the south by Menchaca Road and to the west by Morningside Drive in the
UTSA KFR. About 4 ac (1.6 ha) of land managed under the La Cantera HCP
are not included in this designation of critical habitat (see
explanation below). Unit 6 consists primarily of large, undeveloped,
woodland tracts with several smaller areas developed with homes. John
Wagner Ranch Cave No. 3 is the only cave in this unit, and it is
occupied by Madla Cave meshweaver, R. exilis, and R. infernalis. The
cave was occupied at the time of listing, and the unit contains all the
PCEs for the species.
Special management is needed in this unit because of the
destruction of habitat from development and vandalism, contamination of
the subsurface drainage area of the unit, and infestation of fire ants.
The unit was delineated by drawing a circle with an area of 100 ac
(40 ha) around the cave and then cutting most of Karst Zone 3 out of
the circle, which is primarily the southern portion of the circle. A
small portion of Karst Zone 3 is included in the unit to include the
cave cricket foraging area on the south side. The unit was expanded
outside the remaining circle on the northeastern side to include a
minimum of 100 ac (40 ha) of native vegetation. The majority of
[[Page 8471]]
land included in Unit 6 is in Karst Zone 1.
In accordance with section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we excluded from
critical habitat designation in this unit the John Wagner Ranch Cave
No. 3 and approximately 4 ac (1.6 ha) surrounding the cave under the La
Cantera HCP (see Exclusions section). The cave and surrounding preserve
lands will be managed in perpetuity for the conservation of the
species.
Unit 7
Unit 7 consists of 100 ac (40 ha) of private land located in
northwestern Bexar County, south of Babcock Road near the intersection
of Cielo Vista Drive and Luna Vista in the UTSA KFR. The unit is
largely wooded, but there is some development in the extreme northern
and eastern parts of the unit. Unit 7 contains one cave known as Young
Cave No. 1, and it is occupied by R. exilis. The cave was occupied at
the time of listing, and the unit contains all the PCEs for the
species.
This unit requires special management because of residential
development. There is a new road, Camino del Sol, which ends east of
Young Cave No. 1 and is located within the cave cricket foraging area.
Other threats include the potential for destruction of habitat from
vandalism and new construction, contamination of the subsurface
drainage area, drying of karst, reduction of nutrient input, and
infestation of fire ants.
The unit was delineated by drawing a circle with an area of 100 ac
(40 ha) around Young Cave No. 1. The circle was moved slightly to the
southeast to avoid Karst Zone 3. A small finger in the northeast
portion of the unit is Karst Zone 3. The remainder of the unit is
entirely in Karst Zone 1.
Unit 8
Unit 8 consists of 243 ac (98 ha) of private and City of San
Antonio's Thrift Tract land located in northwestern Bexar County in the
UTSA KFR. About 52 ac (21 ha) of land managed under the La Cantera HCP
are not included in this designation of critical habitat (see
explanation below). The unit is bordered by Kyle Seale Parkway on the
northwest, by Moss Brook Drive on the northeast, and by Cotton Trail
Lane on the south. Some of the land is undeveloped woodland, but some
areas on the edges of the unit have been developed or have been cleared
for future development. This unit contains three caves: Three Fingers
Cave, Hills and Dales Pit, and Robber's Cave. Hills and Dales Pit and
Robber's Cave are occupied by Madla Cave meshweaver, R. exilis, and R.
infernalis. Three Fingers Cave is occupied by R. exilis and R.
infernalis. This unit was occupied at the time of listing, and the unit
contains all the PCEs for the species.
The extreme southern portions of this unit have been subdivided and
developed with homes. Several roads cross the unit. Threats in this
unit include the potential for destruction of habitat from vandalism
and development, contamination of the subsurface drainage area of the
unit, drying of karst, reduction of nutrient input, and infestation of
fire ants.
The unit was delineated by drawing a circle with an area of 100 ac
(40 ha) around each of the three caves and generally connecting the
edges of the resulting circles. Areas with dense development were cut
out of the circle along the northeastern and extreme southern edges. A
quarry was cut out from the northwestern portion. The unit is entirely
in Karst Zone 1.
In accordance with section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we excluded from
critical habitat designation in this unit the Hills and Dales Pit and
approximately 52 ac (21 ha) surrounding the cave under the La Cantera
HCP (see Exclusions section). The cave and surrounding preserve lands
will be managed in perpetuity for the conservation of the species.
There is a total of approximately 70 ac (28 ha) of preserve area
surrounding the cave and being managed under the La Canter HCP.
However, approximately 18 ac (7 ha) of the 70 ac (28 ha) preserve fell
outside the boundaries of this unit when the unit was delineated.
Therefore, we excluded the approximately 52-ac (21-ha) portion of the
preserve land that fell within the unit boundary.
Unit 9
Unit 9 consists of 105 ac (42 ha) of State and private land in
north-central Bexar County on the South side of Loop 1604 and east of
the Loop 1604 intersection with IH 10 in the UTSA KFR. This unit is
primarily a large tract of undeveloped woodland. The unit is bordered
to the west by the University of Texas at San Antonio campus and to the
east by Valero Way. Unit 9 has two caves: Mastodon Pit and Feature No.
50. Feature No. 50 is occupied by Madla Cave meshweaver, and Mastodon
Pit is occupied by R. exilis. Both caves were occupied at the time of
listing, and the unit has all of the PCEs for the species.
Threats include the potential for destruction of habitat from
vandalism and development, contamination of the subsurface drainage
area of the unit, drying of karst, reduction of nutrient input, and
infestation of fire ants.
The unit was delineated by drawing a circle with an area of 100 ac
(40 ha) around the two caves and generally connecting the edges of the
resulting circles. The majority of the land included in Unit 9 is Karst
Zone 1 or Karst Zone 2 (because Feature No. 50 was found to be occupied
after Veni (2003) delineated the zones). We stopped the boundary of the
unit on the north side at the southern edge of Loop 1604, because this
major roadway and the major shopping mall north of it do not have one
or more of the PCEs, including sources of nutrient input. The western
edge generally follows the edge of development. The area to the north
of Loop 1604 is not included in this final critical habitat
designation, because it was authorized for adverse impacts under La
Cantera's HCP (see Exclusions section). We expanded the edge of the
circles to the south to include 100 ac (40 ha) of undisturbed
vegetation and contiguous karst.
Unit 10a
Unit 10a consists of 38 ac (15 ha) of private and City of San
Antonio land. The unit is located in north central Bexar County outside
the southern boundary of the western portion of Camp Bullis (a military
reservation) in the Stone Oak KFR. The eastern part of the unit is in
Eisenhower Park, operated by the City of San Antonio for picnicking,
jogging, and nature study. The remainder of the unit is in private
ownership. The unit is almost entirely undeveloped, but contains some
unpaved roads and hiking trails. This unit was occupied at the time of
listing and contains all the PCEs of the species.
Low Priority Cave is located on Camp Bullis and contains R.
infernalis. However, the Low Priority Cave's entrance is not included
in the unit (because it is exempt under section 4(a)(3) of the Act; see
Exemptions below), but part of its cave cricket foraging area and
mesocaverns likely connected to the cave are included in this unit.
The unit requires special management because of human use of the
park, possible future development on private land, and the presence of
trails and a secondary roadway in the unit. Main threats include the
potential for destruction of surface vegetation, contamination of the
subsurface drainage area of the unit, and infestation of fire ants.
The unit was delineated by drawing a circle with an area of 100 ac
(40 ha) around the cave entrance and removing the portion of the circle
within Camp
[[Page 8472]]
Bullis. The unit is all Karst Zone 1 except for a small portion of
Karst Zone 3 in the northwest corner of the unit, which is included
because removing it would increase the edge effect.
Unit 10b
Unit 10b consists of 35 ac (14 ha) of Eisenhower Park, operated on
Federal land by the City of San Antonio in north-central Bexar County,
east of Unit 10a and along the southern boundary of Camp Bullis in the
Stone Oak KFR. The unit is mostly wooded and is entirely in Eisenhower
Park. Flying Buzzworm Cave, which contains R. infernalis, is located on
Camp Bullis. An immature blind Cicurina has been collected from the
cave, but has not been identified to species. The cave was occupied at
the time of listing. Unit 10b contains the PCEs for the species.
The unit requires special management because of human use of the
park and the presence of trails and a secondary roadway in the unit.
Threats include the potential for destruction of surface vegetation,
contamination of the subsurface drainage area of the unit, and
infestation of fire ants.
The unit was delineated by drawing a circle with an area of 100 ac
(40 ha) around the cave entrance and removing the portion of the circle
within Camp Bullis according to section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16
U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) (see Exemptions section, below). Unit 10b
contains contiguous Karst Zone 1.
Unit 11e
Unit 11e consists of 89 ac (36 ha) of private land outside the
eastern boundary of Camp Bullis in north-central Bexar County. Unit 11e
contains a substantial amount of residential development with
landscaped areas and is crossed by Blanco Road on its western edge,
Cardigan Chase Road near its eastern edge, and Calico Chase Road across
its central portion. Blanco Cave, located in the Blanco Road right-of-
way, contains R. exilis. Blanco Road was included in the unit because
it is so close to the cave opening (it is located in Blanco Road right
of way) and because it likely crosses mesocaverns connected to the
feature. The cave was not known to be occupied at the time of listing,
but it is currently occupied, and likely was at the time of listing
because R. exilis likely has inhabited the Bexar County features for
thousands of years, and surveys sufficient to detect the species were
not conducted before the listing. Therefore, we are considering it to
be occupied at the time of listing. In addition, populations and known
occurrences are so low that all need to be conserved. The area within
Camp Bullis is exempt under section 4(a)(3) of the Act (see
Exemptions). This unit contains both PCEs, although nutrient and
moisture input have been altered by development in portions of the
remainder of the unit. We believe Blanco Cave is essential for the
conservation of the species.
Major threats to physical or biological features in Unit 11e
include destruction of habitat from vandalism and potential future
development, contamination of the subsurface drainage area of the unit,
drying of karst, reduced nutrient input, and infestation of fire ants.
This unit was delineated by drawing a 100-ac (40-ha) circle around
the cave and including all Karst Zone 1 outside of Camp Bullis within
the resulting circle. The edge of the circle was expanded to the south
and to the northeast to include undisturbed vegetation overlying Karst
Zone 1. Camp Bullis was exempted according to section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of
the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) (see Exemptions section, below).
The unit is all Karst Zone 1.
Unit 12
Unit 12 consists of 166 ac (67 ha) of mainly private land in north-
central Bexar County, southwest of the intersection of U.S. Highway 281
and Evans Road in the Stone Oak KFR. The unit is bordered to the east
by U.S. Highway 281, to the south by a quarry, and to the west by a
school and some residential development. Evans Road, another major
roadway, crosses the north-central part of the unit. With the exception
of floodway and part of a middle school in the western part, the unit
is in private ownership. Most of the unit has been developed as a
single-family homes subdivision. The unit also includes some commercial
development in the northeast portion. However, small amounts of
undeveloped land are located in the southern, western, and extreme
northern parts of the unit.
Unit 12 contains the Hairy Tooth and Ragin' Cajun Caves, which are
occupied by R. exilis. Both caves were occupied at the time of listing.
This unit contains the PCEs for the species, but sources of nutrient
input are degraded through most of the unit. Houses and streets impact
the cave cricket foraging areas. However, some vegetation remains over
much of the unit and serves to provide a source of nutrients to the
karst ecosystem. Mesocaverns likely connected to the two caves are also
present in the unit. Because of the absence of KFAs for the potential
to meet recovery criteria for Rhadine exilis in Stone Oak KFR, this
low-quality unit is needed to assure long-term survival of the species.
Threats include the potential for destruction of habitat from
vandalism, development, operation of a quarry, contamination of the
subsurface drainage area of the unit, karst drying, reduction of
nutrient input, and infestation of fire ants. The unit requires special
management because of the commercial development and roadways that
border and cross the unit.
This unit was delineated by drawing a 100-ac (40-ha) circle around
each of the two caves and joining the edges of the two overlapping
circles. A portion of the extreme southern area was removed from the
unit because it contains an active quarry, which has removed some of
the karst, as the karst is covered only by a thin layer of soil in
Karst Zone 1. All of Unit 12 is Karst Zone 1.
Unit 13
Unit 13 consists of 100 ac (41 ha) of developed and undeveloped
private land located in northeastern Bexar County in the Stone Oak KFR.
The unit is located south of the intersection of Menger Road and
Bulverde Road. This unit contains one cave named Black Cat Cave. The
cave opening is a short distance from Bulverde Road, which crosses its
cave footprint and cave cricket foraging area. The northern part of the
unit includes a small amount of dense development on the northwest and
borders less dense development on the northeast. Bulverde Road, a major
two-lane roadway, crosses the middle of the unit from north to south.
In preparation for widening the road, the City of San Antonio has
modified the cave entrance. The southern part of the unit on both sides
of Bulverde road is undeveloped. The cave was occupied by R. exilis at
the time of listing, and the unit contains both PCEs.
This unit requires special management because of residential
development and roadways that border and cross the unit. Threats
include the potential for destruction of habitat from vandalism,
potential future development, contamination of the subsurface drainage
area of the unit, drying of karst from impervious cover and storm water
diversion, reduced nutrient input, and infestation of fire ants.
This unit was delineated by drawing a 100-ac (40-ha) circle around
the cave. We moved the circle to avoid development in the northern part
of the unit. Additional undeveloped land outside the circle, but inside
the area proposed, is included in the unit on the eastern and southern
edge to include at least 100 ac (40 ha) of surface
[[Page 8473]]
vegetation, as described in the Criteria Used To Identify Critical
Habitat section above. All of Unit 13 is Karst Zone 1. Part of the cave
cricket foraging area is not included in the unit because it is either
across the road or across other features that restrict cave cricket
movement.
Unit 14
Unit 14 consists of 292 ac (118 ha) of private land in western
Bexar County, west of the end of Louis Agusta Drive in the Culebra
Anticline KFR. The unit includes several large tracts of undeveloped
woodland. There is a major roadway, Stevens Parkway, in this unit, and
it is in the process of being extended from the southwestern to western
part of the unit. Some of the vegetation has been cleared in the past
for ranching. Three caves occur in this unit: Game Pasture Cave No. 1,
Stevens Ranch Trash Hole Cave, and King Toad Cave. During the comment
period, we learned of two additional occupied features on the property
(F2 and F4). In addition, we obtained more precise information on the
locations and the surface and subsurface drainage areas of all features
in this unit. All five caves and features are known to contain R.
infernalis, and all except F2 and F4 were known to be occupied at the
time of listing; however, all were likely occupied at that time. This
unit contains all the PCEs of the species.
The unit requires special management because of potential future
residential and commercial development and trespassing. Threats include
the potential for destruction of surface vegetation and karst habitat,
contamination of the subsurface drainage area of the unit, drying of
karst, reduction of nutrient input, and infestation of fire ants.
This unit was delineated by drawing a 100-ac (40-ha) circle around
each of the five caves and features. We were unable to include all of
the edges of the overlapping circles because we added two new features
to this unit and because we received additional information about the
locations of the features listed for this unit in proposed critical
habitat. As a result, portions of the circles in the southern, western,
and northwestern portion fell outside the area proposed for critical
habitat, and those portions were not therefore included inside the
final unit boundaries. All of the cave cricket foraging areas are
within the unit boundaries. Unit 14 is all Karst Zone 1.
Unit 15
Unit 15 consists of 217 ac (88 ha) of private land located in
western Bexar County, west of Talley Road and north of Farm to Market
Road 1957 in the Culebra Anticline KFR. The majority of the lands
within Unit 15 are within a subdivision, and all are privately owned.
Tracts in the subdivision are relatively large and still contain wooded
vegetation, but roads and houses have fragmented the cave cricket
foraging areas around all of the occupied caves. There is a substantial
amount of the vegetation in the unit. This unit contains four caves:
Braken Bat Cave, Isopit, Obvious Little Cave, and Wurzbach Bat Cave.
Bracken Bat Cave is the only one that contains the Bracken Bat Cave
meshweaver. All four caves are known to contain R. infernalis, and all
were occupied at the time of listing. This unit contains all the PCEs
for the species.
The unit requires special management because of the proximity of
development, the potential for destruction of habitat from vandalism,
and the fragmentation of the surface community of plants and animals.
Threats include potential future development, contamination of the
subsurface drainage area of the unit, drying of karst, reduction of
nutrient input, and infestation of fire ants.
This unit was delineated by drawing a 100-ac (40-ha) circle around
each of the four caves and connecting the edges of the overlapping
circles. A small portion of the circle on the eastern edge in a high-
density development was removed from the unit. All of Unit 15 is Karst
Zone 1.
Unit 16
Unit 16 consists of 103 ac (42 ha) of private land in western Bexar
County in the Culebra Anticline KFR. The unit contains several large,
primarily undeveloped tracts of woodland, with Loop 1604, a major
highway, to its east. With the exception of the cleared right-of-way of
Loop 1604, most of the remainder of the unit is vegetated. However,
some vegetation in the northern and northwestern part of the unit
appears to have been cleared for livestock grazing. The area to the
south of the unit is operated as a quarry. Caracol Creek Coon Cave is
the only cave in this unit, and it is occupied by R. infernalis. The
unit was occupied at the time of listing, and the unit contains all the
PCEs for the species.
The unit requires special management because of the proximity of
roads and potential future development. Threats include potential for
destruction of habitat from vandalism, quarry operation, and potential
new development; contamination of the subsurface drainage area of the
unit; drying of karst; reduction of nutrient input; and infestation of
fire ants.
This unit was delineated by drawing a 100-ac (40-ha) circle around
the cave. The eastern part of the circle is not included in the unit
because of the effects of Loop 1604 and the dense development to the
east on nutrient input and mesocaverns, and we instead include
undeveloped areas to the west. In addition, during the comment period,
we received information that the subsurface drainage of the cave did
not extend underneath Loop 1604, but inside the proposed area as
previously thought. This information was credible and based on on-site
studies. We expanded the unit outside the circle to the west and
northwest to include at least 100 ac (40 ha) of vegetation adjacent to
the cave opening. Most of Unit 16 is Karst Zone 1, except a small part
of Karst Zone 2 on its western edge.
Unit 17
Unit 17 consists of 96 ac (39 ha) of private land in northwest
Bexar County east of Scenic Loop Road and south of Madla Ranch Road in
the Helotes KFR. About 5 ac (2 ha) within this unit's boundary are not
included in this designation of critical habitat (see explanation
below). The unit contains some houses and paved roads in the eastern
portion and one house in the southeastern portion. The unit contains
one cave, Madla's Cave, which is occupied by Madla Cave meshweaver and
R. infernalis. The cave was occupied at the time of listing, and the
unit has all the PCEs of the species.
In accordance with section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we excluded from
critical habitat designation in this unit Madla's Cave and the
surrounding approximately 5 ac (2 ha), which has been acquired as a
preserve in accordance with the La Cantera HCP (see Exclusions
section). The cave and surrounding preserve land will be managed in
perpetuity for the conservation of the species.
The unit requires special management, because of the presence of
residential development and potential future development within the
unit. Threats include the potential for destruction of habitat from new
development and vandalism, contamination of the subsurface drainage
area of the unit from future development, reduction of moisture and
nutrient input, and infestation of fire ants.
The unit was delineated by drawing a circle with an area of 100 ac
(40 ha) around the cave and removing areas that are not Karst Zone 1
from the northern and southwestern parts of the resulting
[[Page 8474]]
circle. The southern, eastern, and western portions of the circle were
expanded to include 101 ac (40 ha) of undisturbed surface vegetation.
However, we subtracted the 5-ac (2-ha) portion that we excluded under
the La Cantera HCP in the middle of this unit to arrive at
approximately 96 ac (39 ha) of designated critical habitat. A small
area of Karst Zone 3 is included in the southwestern portion of the
unit to reduce edge effects of drawing the boundary along Karst Zone 1.
Unit 19
Unit 19 consists of 81 ac (33 ha) of private land in north-central
Bexar County north of Loop 1604 and east of Oak Road in the Stone Oak
KFR. A large part of the area surrounding the cave has been developed
for residential and/or commercial uses. Several other minor roadways
and parking lots are scattered through the unit, and part of a golf
course is in the northwestern section of the unit. Some trees are left
in a neighborhood in the northern part of the unit, and a few trees are
on the golf course. In addition, there is some landscaped grass
surrounding Genesis Cave, the only cave in this unit. This cave is
occupied by R. infernalis and was occupied at the time of listing. This
unit contains both PCEs.
The unit requires special management, because of the high levels of
residential and commercial development and the large amount of
impervious cover in the unit. Threats include the potential for
destruction of habitat from vandalism and future development,
contamination of the subsurface drainage area of the unit, drying of
karst from impervious cover and storm water diversion, reduced nutrient
input, and infestation of fire ants.
The unit was delineated by drawing a circle with an area of 100 ac
(40 ha) around the cave entrance and removing areas of Karst Zone 2
from the southeastern part of the circle. Areas of Karst Zone 1 that
have a large amount of impervious cover (close to 100 percent) and do
not contain the PCE of sources of nutrient input were also removed from
a large part of the southern portion of the circle, including part of
the cave cricket foraging area. The portion of the subsurface drainage
basin with high impervious cover was left in the circle because there
are some entries for water and nutrients into the karst in that area.
The circle was expanded to the north and west (out to the previous edge
of proposed critical habitat) to include more sources of nutrients
(vegetated areas); however, some of the area has a fairly high density
of buildings. The unit is all Karst Zone 1.
Unit 20
Unit 20 consists of 247 ac (100 ha) of private land located in
north-central San Antonio, south of Loop 410 West, and primarily along
Nacogdoches Road northeast of Broadway in the Alamo Heights KFR. This
unit contains one known occupied cave, Robber Baron Cave, which is the
only known cave for the Cokendolpher Cave harvestman. It is also one of
only two caves known to be occupied by the Robber Baron Cave meshweaver
(OB3 in Unit 25 is the other cave). Robber Baron Cave was occupied at
the time of listing and is the longest cave in Bexar County, consisting
of approximately 0.9 mi (1.5 km) of passages (Veni 2003, p. 19). The
estimated footprint of the cave now underlies numerous residential and
commercial developments. Veni (1997, p. 29) reported a slow decline in
moisture in the cave over time. The Texas Cave Management Association
(TCMA) now owns and manages the cave and about 0.5 ac (0.2 ha)
surrounding the opening. The TCMA is a nonprofit organization dedicated
to the study and management of Texas cave resources. Cave gates and
modifications to the cave entrance have reduced airflow into the cave
and the opportunity for cave crickets to move into and out of the cave.
Installation of a new cave gate, removal of trash, and revegetation of
a small area surrounding the entrance was completed in 2008 by TCMA
(TCMA 2011, pp 2-3) and improved these issues for a portion of the
cave. This unit was occupied at the time of listing and contains both
PCEs.
Surface vegetation within Unit 20 has been significantly reduced
and degraded by urban development, although portions of primarily
landscaped areas remain. The unit requires special management because
of the high levels of residential and commercial development within the
unit. Threats include the potential for destruction of habitat from
vandalism, soil compaction from cave visitation, lack of a nutrient
sources, contamination of the subsurface drainage area of the unit,
drying of karst, and infestation of fire ants. Because of the extensive
development, high levels of impervious cover, and diversion of storm
water over the cave, intensive management may be needed to provide
nutrients and water to the karst environment.
The unit was delineated to encompass the estimated extent of the
surface and subsurface drainage and all of the contiguous Karst Zone 1.
We did not use the standard procedure that we used to delineate other
units because the cave footprint and contiguous Karst Zone 1 are long
and narrow, and because the overall size exceeds 100 ac (40 ha).
Unit 21
Unit 21 consists of 154 ac (62 ha) of private and City of San
Antonio-owned land in northeast Bexar County, northeast of the
intersection of Evans Road and Stone Oak Parkway. The unit contains
several large tracts of undeveloped land. Mud Creek runs through the
unit, and the majority of Unit 21 is the pool area of a flood control
reservoir owned by the City of San Antonio. The rest of the unit is in
private ownership. Vegetation in the lower elevations of the flood pool
area is modified by periodic inundation and/or mechanical control by
the City of San Antonio. Unit 21 contains three caves: Hornet's Last
Laugh Pit, Kick Start Cave, and Springtail Crevice. All are currently
occupied by R. exilis. While they were not known to be occupied at the
time of listing, they likely were occupied at that time. Parts of the
unit contain all the PCEs for the species.
The unit requires special management because of adjacent
residential development, surface contamination from runoff from urban
areas in the surface watershed roadways, periodic inundation, and
potential for new construction in the unit. The main threats include
the potential for destruction of habitat from vandalism, potential
future development, contamination of the subsurface drainage area of
the unit, periodic flooding of caves and mesocaverns from stormwater
retention, and infestation of fire ants.
The unit was delineated by drawing a circle with an area of 100 ac
(40 ha) around each of the three caves and joining the edges of the
three overlapping circles. Some areas on the western side within the
circles were removed from the designation, as they are developed. The
entire unit is Karst Zone 1. One of three caves (Springtail Crevice) is
located in the lower pool area of a flood control reservoir, and its
surface drainage basin covers the entire watershed of Mud Creek
upstream of the cave, which includes 5,675 ac (2,297 ha) of land and
extends about 4.3 mi (6.9 km) upstream. We do not include the entire
surface drainage area for the unit, as it is so large and extends so
far from the cave and the 100 ac (40 ha) area around it. The unit
designation includes about 2.7 percent of the entire surface watershed.
[[Page 8475]]
Unit 22
Unit 22 consists of 100 ac (40 ha) of private and City of San
Antonio's Woodland Hills land located in northwestern Bexar County,
northeast of Babcock Road and northwest of Heuermann Road in the UTSA
KFR. There are several unpaved roads and trails, including one within
the cave cricket foraging area. The unit is mostly undeveloped
woodland, but some areas appear to have been cleared in the past for
ranching. Unit 22 is a combination of private land and the City of San
Antonio's Woodland Hills Preserve for protection of the Edwards Aquifer
recharge. Breathless Cave is the only cave in this unit. Breathless
Cave is occupied by Madla Cave meshweaver. The cave was not known to be
occupied at the time of listing, but it is currently occupied. The cave
likely was at the time of listing, but surveys sufficient to detect the
species were not conducted before the listing. Therefore, we are
considering it to be occupied at the time of listing. In addition,
populations and known occurrences are so low that all need to be
conserved. The unit contains all the PCEs for the species.
The major threat in this unit is potential future development
within the unit. Threats include the potential for destruction of
habitat from new development and vandalism, contamination of the
subsurface drainage area of the unit from future development, reduction
of moisture and nutrient input, and infestation of fire ants.
The unit was delineated by drawing a circle with an area of 100 ac
(40 ha) around Breathless Cave. The resulting unit is mostly Karst Zone
1, except for a small sliver of Karst Zone 3 in its western portion,
which we include because of its narrow width and the increased edge
effects associated with removing this area.
Unit 23
Unit 23 consists of 100 ac (40 ha) of private land and City of San
Antonio's Crownridge Canyon Natural Area in northwestern Bexar County
northeast of Luskey Road and east of the end of Fiesta Grande in the
UTSA KFR. A large portion of the unit is the City of San Antonio's
Crownridge Canyon Natural Area, which is open to hiking, nature study,
and wildlife observation. Parts of the northern and northwestern edges
of the unit are privately owned. Most of Unit 23 is in native woodland
vegetation. The area west and southwest of the unit has been cleared
for a residential subdivision, and some houses have been constructed.
The clearing extends more than halfway into the western portion of the
Crownridge Canyon Cave's cave cricket foraging area. Crownridge Canyon
Cave is the only cave in this unit, and it is occupied by R.
infernalis.
The cave was not known to be occupied at the time of listing, but
it is currently occupied. The cave was likely occupied at the time of
listing, because surveys sufficient to detect the species had not yet
been conducted by the time of listing. Therefore, we are considering it
to be occupied at the time of listing. In addition, populations and
known occurrences are so low that all need to be conserved. The unit
contains all the PCEs for the species.
The unit is primarily threatened by adjacent residential
development, roadways, and potential for new construction in the unit.
Threats include the potential for destruction of habitat from vandalism
and future development, contamination of the subsurface drainage area
of the unit, drying of karst from impervious cover and diversion of
storm water, reduced nutrient input, and infestation of fire ants.
The unit was delineated by drawing a circle with an area of 100 ac
(40 ha) around the cave. The area of the subdivision was removed from
the western and southwestern parts of the circle. The remaining circle
was expanded in all other directions to include 100 ac (40 ha) of
vegetation. The unit is all Karst Zone 1.
Unit 25
Unit 25 consists of 100 ac (41 ha) of private land located in north
central San Antonio near the intersection of Shook Avenue and East
Kings Highway in the Alamo Heights KFR. This unit contains cave OB3,
occupied by the Robber Baron Cave meshweaver. The cave feature was
discovered during excavation in 2009, after the Robber Baron Cave
meshweaver had already been listed. However, the cave was likely
occupied at the time of listing because surveys to detect the species
had not been conducted prior to listing. Therefore, we are considering
it to be occupied at the time of listing, and we believe it is
essential for the conservation of the species, because a total of only
two locations are known for the species and both have impacts to the
surface habitat. The surface habitat around this feature has been
highly modified and is covered with residential and commercial
development, including numerous streets. Unit 25 also contains
landscaped lawns and residential and commercial development. The
vegetation within the unit provides nutrient input into the area
occupied by the species and to features and mesocaverns.
The unit is primarily threatened by high levels of residential and
commercial development within the unit. Threats include the potential
for destruction of habitat from vandalism and potential new
development, contamination of the subsurface drainage area of the unit,
drying of the karst feature, reduction of nutrient input, and
infestation of fire ants.
The unit was delineated by drawing a circle with an area of 100 ac
(40 ha) around the feature. A small area of the south-central portion
of the unit around a large church and parking lot and part of the west-
central portion of the circle around an athletic field and parking lots
were removed because they contain a large amount of impervious cover
and do not contain sources of nutrients. Because no listed species were
known from this area of the Alamo Heights KFR when Karst Zones were
delineated by Veni (2003, p. 12), the entire unit is located in Karst
Zone 2.
Unit 26
Unit 26 is 100 ac (40 ha) of private land in western Bexar County
southwest of the extension of Stevens Ranch Parkway and south of Unit
14 in the Culebra Anticline KFR. This unit is all undeveloped land.
Woody vegetation has been thinned for ranching in the eastern portion
of the unit, while the western portion has been more heavily cleared.
There is one cave in this unit with two entrances, Max and Roberts
Cave, and it currently contains R. infernalis. The cave was not known
to be occupied at the time of listing, but it is currently occupied,
and likely was at the time of listing, because surveys to detect the
species had been not conducted prior to listing. Therefore, we are
considering it to be occupied at the time of listing. In addition,
populations and known occurrences are so low that all need to be
conserved. The unit contains both PCEs for the species. Also, we
believe the cave is essential for the conservation of the species,
because only a small number of locations sufficient to recover the
species are known within the Culebra Anticline KFR.
The primary threats in this unit are potential future residential
and commercial development and trespassing. Specific threats include
the potential for destruction of surface vegetation and karst habitat
from vandalism, contamination of the surface and subsurface drainage
area of the unit, drying of karst habitat, reduction of
[[Page 8476]]
nutrient input, and infestation of fire ants.
The unit was delineated by drawing a circle with an area of 100 ac
(40 ha) around the cave entrance. Areas of Karst Zone 3 on the western
and southern portions of the circle outside the boundaries are not
included. Also, the entire surface drainage area of the cave is not
entirely included in the unit, because it could not be delineated at
the time of the proposed rule. Unit 26 is primarily Karst Zone 1, but
the cave cricket foraging area and part of the surface drainage basin
on the western part of the unit in Karst Zone 3 are included.
Effects of Critical Habitat Designation
Section 7 Consultation
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the
Service, to ensure that any action they fund, authorize, or carry out
is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered
species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse
modification of designated critical habitat of such species. In
addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to
confer with the Service on any agency action which is likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed
under the Act or result in the destruction or adverse modification of
proposed critical habitat.
Decisions by the 5th and 9th Circuit Courts of Appeals have
invalidated our regulatory definition of ``destruction or adverse
modification'' (50 CFR 402.02) (see Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, 378 F. 3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2004) and Sierra
Club v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service et al., 245 F.3d 434, 442 (5th
Cir. 2001)), and we do not rely on this regulatory definition when
analyzing whether an action is likely to destroy or adversely modify
critical habitat. Under the statutory provisions of the Act, we
determine destruction or adverse modification on the basis of whether,
with implementation of the proposed Federal action, the affected
critical habitat would continue to serve its intended conservation role
for the species.
If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical
habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency) must enter into
consultation with us. Examples of actions that are subject to the
section 7 consultation process are actions on State, tribal, local, or
private lands that require a Federal permit (such as a permit from the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a permit from the Service under section 10
of the Act) or that involve some other Federal action (such as funding
from the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Aviation
Administration, or the Federal Emergency Management Agency). Federal
actions not affecting listed species or critical habitat, and actions
on State, tribal, local, or private lands that are not federally funded
or authorized, do not require section 7 consultation.
As a result of section 7 consultation, we document compliance with
the requirements of section 7(a)(2) through our issuance of:
(1) A concurrence letter for Federal actions that may affect, but
are not likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat;
or
(2) A biological opinion for Federal actions that may affect, or
are likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat.
When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species and/or
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, we provide reasonable and
prudent alternatives to the project, if any are identifiable, that
would avoid the likelihood of jeopardy and/or destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat. We define ``reasonable and prudent
alternatives'' (at 50 CFR 402.02) as alternative actions identified
during consultation that:
(1) Can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended
purpose of the action,
(2) Can be implemented consistent with the scope of the Federal
agency's legal authority and jurisdiction,
(3) Are economically and technologically feasible, and
(4) Would, in the Director's opinion, avoid the likelihood of
jeopardizing the continued existence of the listed species and/or avoid
the likelihood of destroying or adversely modifying critical habitat.
Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from slight project
modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the project. Costs
associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent alternative are
similarly variable.
Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate
consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances where we have
listed a new species or subsequently designated critical habitat that
may be affected and the Federal agency has retained discretionary
involvement or control over the action (or the agency's discretionary
involvement or control is authorized by law). Consequently, Federal
agencies sometimes may need to request reinitiation of consultation
with us on actions for which formal consultation has been completed, if
those actions with discretionary involvement or control may affect
subsequently listed species or designated critical habitat.
Application of the ``Adverse Modification'' Standard
The key factor related to the adverse modification determination is
whether, with implementation of the proposed Federal action, the
affected critical habitat would continue to serve its intended
conservation role for the species. Activities that may destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat are those that alter the physical or
biological features to an extent that appreciably reduces the
conservation value of critical habitat for nine Bexar County
invertebrates. As discussed above, the role of critical habitat is to
support life-history needs of the species and provide for the
conservation of the species.
Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and
describe, in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical
habitat, activities involving a Federal action that may destroy or
adversely modify such habitat, or that may be affected by such
designation.
Activities that may affect critical habitat, when carried out,
funded, or authorized by a Federal agency, should result in
consultation for the nine Bexar County invertebrates. These activities
include, but are not limited to:
(1) Actions that would result in removing, thinning, or destroying
perennial surface vegetation. Such activities could include, but are
not limited to, burning, wood cutting or other mechanical removal,
grading, livestock practices that lead to excessive overgrazing,
construction, road building, mining, and herbicide application. These
activities could destroy or damage the native plant community and
increase the number of nonnative plants and animals, including fire
ants. The actions could also adversely affect cave crickets and other
native animals on the surface that provide nutrients to the karst
ecosystem, reduce other nutrient input (for example, leaf litter and
roots), reduce water quality, reduce humidity of the cave, and change
subterranean temperatures.
(2) Actions that would alter the surface topography or subsurface
geology, resulting in a disruption of
[[Page 8477]]
ecosystem processes necessary to sustain the karst environment. Such
activities could include, but are not limited to, filling cave
entrances or otherwise reducing airflow in a way that limits oxygen
availability; modifying cave entrances or creating new entrances that
increase airflow in a way that results in drying of the karst features;
altering natural drainage patterns, surface or subsurface, in a manner
that alters the amount or quality or both of water entering the cave,
karst feature, or mesocaverns; removing or disturbing native surface
vegetation so that it alters the quality or quantity of water entering
the karst environment; disturbing soil in such a way that it results in
increased sedimentation in the karst environment or increased numbers
of fire ants; increasing impervious cover that may decrease water
quantity entering the karst environment or affect the temperature of
karst below it or both within any critical habitat unit, such as paving
over a vegetated area; building roads or other features that block
movements of cave crickets, thereby reducing the available foraging
area; and altering the entrance or opening of a cave or karst feature
in a way that would disrupt movements of cave crickets or other animals
that provide nutrient input or otherwise negatively altering the
movement of nutrients into the cave or karst feature.
(3) Actions that would introduce pollutants to the occupied
features themselves, the surface and subsurface drainage basins, or the
surrounding mesocaverns. Such activities could include, but are not
limited to, discharge or dumping of chemicals, silt, pollutants,
household or industrial waste, pesticides or herbicides, or other
harmful material into or near critical habitat units that may affect
surface plant and animal communities or that may affect the subsurface
karst ecosystem or degrade subsurface water quality.
(4) Activities within caves that would lead to soil compaction,
changes in atmospheric conditions, or abandonment of the cave by bats
or other fauna. Such activities could include, but are not limited to,
excessive human traffic, destruction of cave features, enlargement of
existing entrances, or creation of new entrances to karst features.
(5) Activities that would attract or increase fire ants,
cockroaches, or other invasive predators, competitors, parasites, or
potential vectors for diseases into caves or karst features within the
critical habitat units. Such activities could include, but are not
limited to, dumping of garbage in or around caves or karst features.
Exemptions
Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act
The Sikes Improvement Act of 1997 (Sikes Act) (16 U.S.C. 670a)
required each military installation that includes land and water
suitable for the conservation and management of natural resources to
complete an integrated natural resources management plan (INRMP) by
November 17, 2001. An INRMP integrates implementation of the military
mission of the installation with stewardship of the natural resources
found on the base. Each INRMP includes:
(1) An assessment of the ecological needs on the installation,
including the need to provide for the conservation of listed species;
(2) A statement of goals and priorities;
(3) A detailed description of management actions to be implemented
to provide for these ecological needs; and
(4) A monitoring and adaptive management plan.
Among other things, each INRMP must, to the extent appropriate and
applicable, provide for fish and wildlife management; fish and wildlife
habitat enhancement or modification; wetland protection, enhancement,
and restoration where necessary to support fish and wildlife; and
enforcement of applicable natural resource laws.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub.
L. 108-136) amended the Act to limit areas eligible for designation as
critical habitat. Specifically, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16
U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) now provides: ``The Secretary shall not
designate as critical habitat any lands or other geographical areas
owned or controlled by the Department of Defense, or designated for its
use, that are subject to an integrated natural resources management
plan prepared under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if
the Secretary determines in writing that such plan provides a benefit
to the species for which critical habitat is proposed for
designation.''
We consult with the military on the development and implementation
of INRMPs for installations with listed species. We analyzed INRMPs
developed by military installations located within the range of the
critical habitat designation for Rhadine exilis, R. infernalis, and
Madla Cave meshweaver to determine if they are exempt under section
4(a)(3) of the Act. Only these three species occur on Department of
Defense lands and are included in the military's INRMP. The following
areas are Department of Defense lands with completed, Service-approved
INRMPs within the proposed critical habitat designation.
Approved INRMPs
Camp Bullis Military Reservation
Camp Bullis Military Reservation (Camp Bullis) has an approved
INRMP in place that provides benefits to Rhadine exilis, R. infernalis,
and Madla Cave meshweaver. Again, only these three species occur on
Camp Bullis' lands. Camp Bullis is a 43.7-square-mile (mi2)
(113.3-square-kilometer (km2)) facility under the command of
Fort Sam Houston, U.S. Army, Texas. The area contains 26 caves with 1
or more of the 3 listed species. After the species were petitioned for
listing, Camp Bullis began karst investigations to determine the extent
of these species on their property and how best to manage them. A
management plan was developed in 1999 (Veni and Associates 1999) and
revised in 2002 (Veni et al. 2002a and 2002b) to eliminate, mitigate,
and prevent harm to these and other rare species on Camp Bullis in
perpetuity. The Veni et al. 2002a and 2002b reports became part of an
INRMP in 2005. The INRMP was revised in 2007, and underwent an annual
review and update in 2010.
The INRMP provides for management of all caves occupied by Rhadine
exilis, R. infernalis, and Madla Cave meshweaver. The Madla Cave
meshweaver is only found in one cave within the interior of Camp
Bullis. Management actions include protecting the cave footprint,
surface and subsurface drainage areas associated with the occupied
cave, cave cricket foraging area, and surface plant and animal
community, and controlling fire ants. The plan includes in-cave
biological surveys, cave gate construction, and preservation of karst
management areas (KMAs) around cave entrances. The KMAs will be
preserved in perpetuity within the limits possible through the
authority of Camp Bullis and its operational and mission requirements.
The INRMP stipulates that should Camp Bullis ever be transferred in
whole or in part, local Army officials will request that the Secretary
of the Army, or other appropriate authority, review and incorporate
provisions from this management plan into the property disposal
procedures. Those provisions would transfer responsibility for
appropriate management of any former Camp Bullis karst management areas
to
[[Page 8478]]
all subsequent owners by deed recordation or other binding instrument.
Based on the above considerations, and in accordance with section
4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, we have determined that the identified lands
are subject to the Camp Bullis INRMP and that conservation efforts
identified in the INRMP will provide a benefit to Rhadine exilis, R.
infernalis, and Madla Cave meshweaver occurring in habitats within or
adjacent to Camp Bullis. Therefore, lands within this installation are
exempt from critical habitat designation under section 4(a)(3) of the
Act. We are not including approximately 4,104 ac (1,660 ha) of habitat
in this final critical habitat designation because of this exemption.
Exclusions
Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary shall
designate and make revisions to critical habitat on the basis of the
best available scientific data after taking into consideration the
economic impact, national security impact, and any other relevant
impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The
Secretary may exclude an area from critical habitat if he determines
that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying
such area as part of the critical habitat, unless he determines, based
on the best scientific data available, that the failure to designate
such area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the
species. In making that determination, the statute on its face, as well
as the legislative history are clear that the Secretary has broad
discretion regarding which factor(s) to use and how much weight to give
to any factor.
In considering whether to exclude a particular area from the
designation, we identify the benefits of including the area in the
designation, identify the benefits of excluding the area from the
designation, and evaluate whether the benefits of exclusion outweigh
the benefits of inclusion. If the analysis indicates that the benefits
of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion, the Secretary may
exercise his discretion to exclude the area only if such exclusion
would not result in the extinction of the species.
When identifying the benefits of inclusion for an area, we consider
the additional regulatory benefits that area would receive from the
protection from adverse modification or destruction as a result of
actions with a Federal nexus; the educational benefits of mapping
essential habitat for recovery of the listed species; and any benefits
that may result from a designation due to State or Federal laws that
may apply to critical habitat.
When identifying the benefits of exclusion, we consider, among
other things, whether exclusion of a specific area is likely to result
in conservation; the continuation, strengthening, or encouragement of
partnerships; or implementation of a management plan that provides
equal to or more conservation than a critical habitat designation would
provide. We also consider whether the plan protects the area from all
threats, particularly those with a Federal nexus and whether additional
protection would be provided with critical habitat.
In the case of the nine Bexar County invertebrates, the benefits of
critical habitat include public awareness of the invertebrates'
presence and the importance of areas that need special management or
protection for recovery of species survival, and, in cases where a
Federal nexus exists, increased habitat protection for the nine Bexar
County invertebrates due to the protection from adverse modification or
destruction of critical habitat.
When we evaluate the existence of a conservation plan when
considering the benefits of exclusion, we consider a variety of
factors, including but not limited to, whether the plan is finalized;
how it provides for the conservation of the essential physical or
biological features; whether there is a reasonable expectation that the
conservation management strategies and actions contained in a
management plan will be implemented into the future; whether the
conservation strategies in the plan are likely to be effective; and
whether the plan contains a monitoring program or adaptive management
to ensure that the conservation measures are effective and can be
adapted in the future in response to new information.
After identifying the benefits of inclusion and the benefits of
exclusion, we carefully weigh the two sides to evaluate whether the
benefits of exclusion outweigh those of inclusion. If our analysis
indicates that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of
inclusion, we then determine whether exclusion would result in
extinction. If exclusion of an area from critical habitat would result
in extinction, we will not exclude it from the designation.
Based on the information provided by entities seeking exclusion, as
well as additional public comments we received, we evaluated whether
certain lands in the proposed critical habitat Units 1e, 3, 6, 8, 9,
and 17 were appropriate for exclusion from this final designation
pursuant to section 4(b)(2) of the Act. We are excluding from critical
habitat designation approximately 232 ac (94 ha) in portions of Units
1e, 3, 6, 8, 9, and 17 that are covered under the La Cantera HCP. Table
4 below provides approximate areas (ac, ha) of lands that meet the
definition of critical habitat but are being excluded under section
4(b)(2) of the Act from the final critical habitat rule. We are
excluding these areas because we believe that they are appropriate for
exclusion under the ``other relevant factor'' provisions of section
4(b)(2) of the Act.
Table 4--Areas Excluded From Critical Habitat Designation by Critical Habitat Unit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Areas meeting the definition Areas excluded from critical
Unit Specific area of critical habitat, in habitat, in acres
acres (hectares) (hectares)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1e....................... La Cantera HCP Canyon 64 ac (26 ha)............... 64 ac (26 ha).
Ranch Preserve.
3........................ La Cantera HCP Helotes 25 ac (10 ha)............... 25 ac (10 ha).
Blowhole/Helotes Hilltop
Preserve.
6........................ La Cantera HCP John 4 ac (1.6 ha)............... 4 ac (1.6 ha).
Wagner Ranch Cave
Preserve.
8........................ La Cantera HCP Hills and 52 ac (21 ha)............... 52 ac (21 ha).
Dales Pit Preserve.
9........................ Area north of Highway 82 ac (33 ha)............... 82 ac (33 ha).
1604 covered by the La
Cantera HCP.
17....................... La Cantera HCP Madla's 5 ac (2 ha)................. 5 ac (2 ha).
Cave Preserve.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Total................ ......................... 232 ac (94 ha).............. 232 ac (94 ha).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 8479]]
Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider the economic impacts
of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. In order to
consider economic impacts, we prepared a draft economic analysis of the
proposed critical habitat designation and related factors (Industrial
Economics 2011). The draft analysis, dated June 24, 2011, was made
available for public review and comment from August 2, 2011, through
September 1, 2011 (76 FR 46234). Following the close of the comment
period, a final analysis (dated November 14, 2011) of the potential
economic effects of the designation was developed taking into
consideration the public comments and any new information (Industrial
Economics 2011).
The intent of the final economic analysis (FEA) is to quantify the
economic impacts of all potential conservation efforts for the nine
Bexar County invertebrates; some of these costs will likely be incurred
regardless of whether we designate critical habitat (baseline). The
economic impact of the final critical habitat designation is analyzed
by comparing scenarios both ``with critical habitat'' and ``without
critical habitat.'' The ``without critical habitat'' scenario
represents the baseline for the analysis, considering protections
already in place for the species (e.g., under the Federal listing and
other Federal, State, and local regulations). The baseline, therefore,
represents the costs incurred regardless of whether critical habitat is
designated. The ``with critical habitat'' scenario describes the
incremental impacts associated specifically with the designation of
critical habitat for the species. The incremental conservation efforts
and associated impacts are those not expected to occur absent the
designation of critical habitat for the species. In other words, the
incremental costs are those attributable solely to the designation of
critical habitat beyond the baseline costs; these are the costs we
consider in the final designation of critical habitat. The analysis
looks retrospectively at baseline impacts incurred since the species
was listed, and forecasts both baseline and incremental impacts likely
to occur with the designation of critical habitat.
The FEA also addresses how potential economic impacts are likely to
be distributed, including an assessment of any local or regional
impacts of habitat conservation and the potential effects of
conservation activities on government agencies, private businesses, and
individuals. The FEA measures lost economic efficiency associated with
residential and commercial development and public projects and
activities, such as economic impacts on water management and
transportation projects, Federal lands, small entities, and the energy
industry. Decision-makers can use this information to assess whether
the effects of the designation might unduly burden a particular group
or economic sector. Finally, the FEA looks retrospectively at costs
that have been incurred since 2000 (year of the species' listing) (65
FR 81419), and considers those costs that may occur in the 20 years
following the designation of critical habitat, which was determined to
be the appropriate period for analysis because limited planning
information was available for most activities to forecast activity
levels for projects beyond a 20-year timeframe. The FEA quantifies
economic impacts of nine Bexar County invertebrates conservation
efforts associated with the following categories of activity:
(1) Development. The potential for future residential and
commercial development constitutes a primary threat to invertebrate
habitat. A healthy surface community of native plants and animals and
surface water free of pollutants are primary constituent elements for
the species that can be adversely affected by development activity.
(2) Transportation projects. Road construction and improvement
projects may negatively affect surface animal and plant communities and
surface water quality within the habitat area.
(3) Utility projects. Utility projects, including pipeline, water
system, and transmission line construction/maintenance, may affect
critical habitat by degrading the karst forming rock where the species
live.
(4) Species/habitat management. The invertebrates and their habitat
are currently afforded some level of protection under various
management plans, including the La Cantera HCP, Government Canyon State
Natural Area Karst Management and Maintenance Plan, and Robber Baron
Preserve Management Plan.
The FEA estimates the incremental impact of designation for two
scenarios. Under Scenario 1, all development projects in Karst Zones 1
and 2 are assumed to reduce quality to low, and thus project
modifications requested during consultation are considered baseline.
Under Scenario 2, all development projects in Karst Zones 1 and 2 are
assumed to reduce quality to medium, and thus project modifications
requested during consultation are considered incremental. Impacts to
development activities represent approximately 99.5 to 99.6 percent in
Scenario 1, and 94 to 95 percent in Scenario 2, of the overall impacts
to areas proposed for designation during the first 20 years. Between
years 21 and 29, all incremental impacts are associated with
development activities (as the timeframe for the analysis of impacts to
other activities extends only through 20 years).
Total incremental costs for 2012 to 2031 ranged from $2,590,000 to
$3,530,000 for Scenario 1, and from $43,100,000 to $55,100,000 for
Scenario 2. Annualized costs during that timeframe were $244,000 to
$333,000 for Scenario 1, and $4,070,000 to $5,200,000 for Scenario 2.
Total estimated incremental costs for years 2032 to 2040 were $24,100
for Scenario 1, and $65,800 for Scenario 2. Estimated annualized costs
were $3,700 and $10,100, respectively.
The majority of the impacts to development activities are land
value losses due to restrictions on future development (91.0 to 93.4
percent of Scenario 1 development impacts and 96.5 to 97.3 percent of
Scenario 2 development value impacts). The present value incremental
impact to transportation activities in the areas proposed for
designation range from $13,400 in Scenario 1 to $2,770,000 in Scenario
2 (assuming a 7 percent discount rate). These figures represent an
annualized impact of approximately $1,270 to $262,000. No incremental
impacts are expected to utility project and species and habitat
management.
Our economic analysis did not identify any disproportionate costs
that are likely to result from the designation of critical habitat for
the nine Bexar County invertebrates. Consequently, we have determined
not to exert our discretion to exclude any areas from this designation
of critical habitat based on economic impacts. A copy of the FEA with
supporting documents may be obtained by contacting the Austin
Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES) or by downloading them
from the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
Exclusions Based on National Security Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider whether there are
lands owned or managed by the Department of Defense (DOD) where a
national security impact might exist. In preparing this final rule, we
have determined that the lands within the designation of critical
habitat for the nine Bexar County invertebrates are not owned or
managed by the Department of Defense, and, therefore, we anticipate no
impact on
[[Page 8480]]
national security. Consequently, the Secretary is not exercising his
discretion to exclude any areas from this final designation based on
impacts on national security.
Exclusions Based on Other Relevant Impacts--Habitat Conservation Plans
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider any other relevant
impacts, in addition to economic impacts and impacts on national
security. We consider a number of factors including whether the
landowners have developed any HCPs or other management plans for the
area, or whether there are conservation partnerships that would be
encouraged by designation of, or exclusion from, critical habitat. In
addition, we look at any Tribal issues, and consider the government-to-
government relationship of the United States with Tribal entities. We
also consider any social impacts that might occur because of the
designation.
Land and Resource Management Plans, Conservation Plans, or Agreements
Based on Conservation Partnerships
We consider a current land management or conservation plan (HCPs as
well as other types) to provide adequate management or protection if it
meets the following criteria:
(1) The plan is complete and provides the same or better level of
protection from adverse modification or destruction than that provided
through a consultation under section 7 of the Act.
(2) There is a reasonable expectation that the conservation
management strategies and actions will be implemented for the
foreseeable future, based on past practices, written guidance, or
regulations.
(3) The plan provides conservation strategies and measures
consistent with currently accepted principles of conservation biology.
We believe that portions of Units 1e, 3, 6, 8, 9, and 17 under the
La Cantera Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), which provides for the
conservation of Madla Cave meshweaver and Rhadine exilis, fulfills the
above criteria. Thus, we are excluding approximately 232 ac (94 ha) of
non-Federal lands in portions of Units 1e, 3, 6, 8, 9, and 17 under
this HCP.
La Cantera Habitat Conservation Plan
The goals of the La Cantera HCP are to minimize and mitigate for
the potential negative effects of constructing and operating
commercial, light industrial, recreational, and residential development
near and adjacent to currently occupied habitat of the endangered karst
invertebrates, and to contribute to conservation of the covered species
and other listed and non-listed cave or karst fauna.
The La Cantera HCP authorizes take of listed species in La Cantera
Cave No. 1 and La Cantera Cave No. 2 by allowing development to occur
in areas surrounding these caves, which are adjacent to Unit 9.
However, under the La Cantera HCP, mitigation for take within these
caves was implemented by purchasing and conserving eight caves known to
contain one or more of the nine Bexar County invertebrates. These
mitigation caves are Canyon Ranch Pit, Fat Man's Nightmare Cave, Scenic
Overlook Cave and the surrounding approximately 75 ac (30 ha) adjacent
to Unit 1e; Helotes Blowhole and Helotes Hilltop Caves and the
surrounding approximately 25 ac (10 ha) adjacent to Unit 3; John Wagner
Ranch Cave No. 3 and the surrounding approximately 4 ac (1.6 ha)
adjacent to Unit 6; Hills and Dales Pit and the surrounding
approximately 70 ac (28 ha) adjacent to Unit 8; and Madla's Cave and
the surrounding approximately 5 ac (2 ha) within Unit 17 (through
purchase of a conservation easement). As part of their HCP, La Cantera
is required to protect and manage these areas in perpetuity in
accordance with the conservation needs of the species.
All of the approximately 232 ac (94 ha) of non-Federal lands under
the La Cantera HCP in Units 1e, 3, 6, 8, 9, and 17 that we are
excluding have either been authorized for development or preserved in
perpetuity for the conservation of Madla Cave meshweaver and Rhadine
exilis. We did include in this critical habitat designation lands
surrounding these occupied caves and associated management areas, as
these lands provide physical and biological features that are essential
to the conservation of the species.
The Benefits of Inclusion
The principle benefit of including an area in critical habitat
designation is the requirement of Federal agencies to ensure that
actions that they fund, authorize, or carry out are not likely to
result in the destruction or adverse modification of any designated
critical habitat, which is the regulatory standard of section 7(a)(2)
of the Act under which consultation is completed. Federal agencies must
consult with the Service on actions that may affect a listed species,
and refrain from actions that are likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of such species. The analysis of effects to critical habitat
is a separate and different analysis from that of the effects to the
species. Therefore, the difference in outcomes of these two analyses
represents the regulatory benefit of critical habitat. For some cases,
the outcome of these analyses will be similar, because effects to
habitat will often result in effects to the species. However, the
regulatory standard is different, as the jeopardy analysis investigates
the action's impact to survival and recovery of the species, while the
adverse modification analysis investigates the action's effects to the
designated habitat's contribution to conservation. This will, in many
cases, lead to different results and different regulatory requirements.
Thus, critical habitat designation may provide greater benefits to the
recovery of a species than listing would alone. Therefore, critical
habitat designation may provide a regulatory benefit for the Madla Cave
meshweaver and Rhadine exilis on lands covered under the La Cantera HCP
when there is a Federal nexus present for a project that might
adversely modify critical habitat.
Another possible benefit of including lands in critical habitat is
public education regarding the potential conservation value of an area
that may help focus conservation efforts on areas of high conservation
value for certain species. We consider any information about the nine
Bexar County invertebrates and their habitats that reaches a wide
audience, including parties engaged in conservation activities, is
valuable. Designation as critical habitat of the preserve areas would
provide educational benefits by informing Federal agencies and the
public about presence of listed species for all units, including lands
surrounding the La Cantera preserves. The process of designating
critical habitat is valuable in prioritizing conservation and
management of identified areas.
In summary, we believe that the benefits of inclusion of lands
under the La Cantera HCP are a regulatory benefit when there is a
Federal nexus present for a project that might adversely modify
critical habitat and educational benefits about the listed
invertebrates and their habitat.
Benefits of Exclusion
The benefits of excluding lands from critical habitat designation
with properly implemented HCPs, such as the La Cantera HCP, include
relieving landowners, communities, and counties of any additional
regulatory burden that might be imposed as a result of the critical
habitat designation. A related benefit of exclusion is the continued
ability to maintain existing and seek
[[Page 8481]]
new partnerships with future plan participants, including States,
counties, local jurisdictions, conservation organizations, private
landowners, and developers, which together can implement conservation
actions that we would be unable to accomplish without these partners.
Not only are HCPs important for listed species, but they can help
conserve many species that are not State or federally listed, which
might not otherwise receive protection absent the HCPs. In most HCP
cases, permittees agree to do more for the conservation of the species
and their habitats on private lands than designation of critical
habitat would provide alone. Therefore, we place great value on the
partnerships that are developed with HCPs.
We believe that the exclusion of La Cantera HCP lands from critical
habitat will help preserve the partnership we have developed with the
La Cantera Development Company, reinforce those relationships we are
building with other developers, and foster future partnerships and
development of future management plans. The La Cantera HCP was
developed to provide specific protection and management for the
conservation of Madla Cave meshweaver and Rhadine exilis by purchasing
and conserving eight caves known to contain one or more of the nine
Bexar County invertebrates for which take was being permitted. The
preserve lands under the La Cantera HCP are providing protection for
the physical and biological features essential to the conservation of
the species in a way that is equal to or better than designation of
critical habitat would provide. Therefore, exclusion of these lands
under the La Cantera HCP from critical habitat will help preserve the
partnerships, and will foster future partnerships, and thus future
conservation efforts.
Additionally, the La Cantera Development Company has expressed a
desire to not have lands under their HCP included in our critical
habitat designation. The La Cantera Development Company asked
specifically for the preserve lands to be excluded, because the lands
do not require additional special protection or management. We believe
that exclusion of the preserve areas will help maintain a good
relationship with the preserve owner. Also, excluding lands under the
La Cantera HCP will show that we are committed to our partners to
further the conservation for the nine Bexar County invertebrates and
other endangered and threatened species.
Benefits of Exclusion Outweigh the Benefits of Inclusion
We reviewed and evaluated the benefits of inclusion and the
benefits of exclusion as critical habitat those lands included in the
La Cantera HCP. We acknowledge that the La Cantera HCP provides
authorization of incidental take caused by development in areas around
La Cantera Cave No. 1 and La Cantera Cave No. 2, but we believe that
there were greater long-term conservation benefits that resulted from
the implementation of this HCP, because eight cave areas were bought
and are being managed in perpetuity as preserve areas for conservation
of the species. Implementation of the La Cantera HCP will occur
regardless of critical habitat designation. We believe that including
La Cantera HCP lands in the critical habitat designation will provide
little additional regulatory protection under section 7(a) of the Act
when there is a Federal nexus, and educational benefits will be
redundant with those already achieved through listing, the previous
critical habitat designation, and areas surrounding the La Cantera HCP
lands that are being designated as critical habitat by this rule.
Therefore, we see very little benefit to including the La Cantera HCP
lands in the critical habitat designation.
Subsequently, critical habitat may provide a regulatory benefit for
the Madla Cave meshweaver and Rhadine exilis on lands covered under the
La Cantera HCP when there is a Federal nexus present for a project that
might adversely modify critical habitat. Thus, critical habitat
designation could provide additional protection to the preserve areas
from adverse impacts of future Federal actions (for example,
condemnation by a federally funded road expansion project). Without
this protection, Federal projects that would result in adverse
modification could be allowed to degrade habitat in the preserves.
However, the preserve areas under the La Cantera HCP are managed in
perpetuity for the conservation of the Madla Cave meshweaver and
Rhadine exilis. Also, the preserve areas are privately owned, and at
this time, we do not anticipate any future projects that would involve
a Federal nexus. Therefore, we believe that including the lands covered
under the La Cantera HCP as critical habitat would provide very little
regulatory protection.
Additionally, once an HCP is permitted, implementation of
conservation measures will occur, regardless of whether critical
habitat is designated within its plan boundaries, and excluding the
development areas will clarify the message to Federal agencies and to
the public that these impacts have already been authorized. Designation
would confuse Federal agencies and the public about the value of the
area without providing any meaningful benefits. Designation as critical
habitat would also mislead Federal agencies and the public that the
development areas are essential for conservation of the species, while
providing minimal protection from a Federal project involving land
condemnation.
Furthermore, we believe that the educational benefits of critical
habitat designation on La Cantera HCP lands are not significant due to
extensive past outreach and ongoing conservation efforts. Also, we are
designating as critical habitat those lands surrounding lands covered
by the La Cantera HCP, which already results in educational benefits
for the listed invertebrates and their habitats without designating the
La Cantera HCP lands as critical habitat. Thus, an inclusion of the La
Cantera HCP lands would not provide any additional educational
benefits.
In summary, we find that the benefits of excluding the La Cantera
HCP lands from critical habitat outweigh the benefits of inclusion,
based on the conservation values outlined in the HCP and summarized
above. In consideration of the relevant impacts to our relationships
with non-Federal partners to develop effective management plans that
provide benefits to species, we determined that the benefits of
exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion in critical habitat. We
find that excluding lands under the La Cantera HCP will preserve our
partnership and foster future habitat management and species
conservation efforts with non-Federal entities. These partnership
benefits are significant, because they provide protection and
conservation of species on private lands that would not otherwise occur
even with critical habitat designation. We believe that these
partnership benefits outweigh the limited regulatory and educational
benefits of including these lands in the final critical habitat
designation.
Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction of the Species
We determined that the exclusion from critical habitat designation
for Madla Cave meshweaver and Rhadine exilis of approximately 232 ac
(94 ha) of non-Federal land in Units 1e, 3, 6, 8, 9, and 17, which are
covered under the La Cantera HCP, will not result in extinction of
these species. Under the La Cantera HCP, eight caves containing one
[[Page 8482]]
or more of the nine Bexar County invertebrates has been purchased and
will be managed in perpetuity for the conservation of these species.
Additionally, the jeopardy standard of section 7 of the Act and routine
implementation of conservation measures through the section 7 process
due to these species' occupancy and protection provided by the La
Cantera HCP provide assurances that these species will not go extinct
as a result of excluding these lands from the critical habitat
designation. Therefore, based on the above discussion, the Secretary is
exercising his discretion to exclude approximately 232 ac (94 ha) of
lands managed by the La Cantera HCP from this final critical habitat
designation.
Required Determinations
Regulatory Planning and Review--Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this
rule is not significant and has not reviewed this rule under Executive
Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review). OMB bases its
determination upon the following four criteria:
(1) Whether the rule will have an annual effect of $100 million or
more on the economy or adversely affect an economic sector,
productivity, jobs, the environment, or other units of the government.
(2) Whether the rule will create inconsistencies with other Federal
agencies' actions.
(3) Whether the rule will materially affect entitlements, grants,
user fees, loan programs or the rights and obligations of their
recipients.
(4) Whether the rule raises novel legal or policy issues.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.),
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996 (5 U.S.C 801 et seq.), whenever an agency must publish
a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare
and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis
that describes the effects of the rule on small entities (small
businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions).
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of
an agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The SBREFA amended
the RFA to require Federal agencies to provide a certification
statement of the factual basis for certifying that the rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. In this final rule, we are certifying that the critical
habitat designation for the nine Bexar County invertebrates will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The following discussion explains our rationale.
According to the Small Business Administration, small entities
include small organizations, such as independent nonprofit
organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school
boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000
residents; as well as small businesses. Small businesses include
manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500 employees,
wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees, retail and
service businesses with less than $5 million in annual sales, general
and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5 million in
annual business, special trade contractors doing less than $11.5
million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with annual
sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic impacts on
these small entities are significant, we consider the types of
activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this rule, as
well as the types of project modifications that may result. In general,
the term ``significant economic impact'' is meant to apply to a typical
small business firm's business operations.
To determine if the rule could significantly affect a substantial
number of small entities, we consider the number of small entities
affected within particular types of economic activities (e.g., small
construction, housing builders, or subdividers). We apply the
``substantial number'' test individually to each industry to determine
if certification is appropriate. However, the SBREFA does not
explicitly define ``substantial number'' or ``significant economic
impact.'' Consequently, to assess whether a ``substantial number'' of
small entities are affected by this designation, this analysis
considers the relative number of small entities likely to be impacted
in an area. In some circumstances, especially with critical habitat
designations of limited extent, we may aggregate across all industries
and consider whether the total number of small entities affected is
substantial. In estimating the number of small entities potentially
affected, we also consider whether their activities have any Federal
involvement.
Designation of critical habitat only affects activities authorized,
funded, or carried out by Federal agencies. Some kinds of activities
are unlikely to have any Federal involvement and so will not be
affected by critical habitat designation. In areas where the species is
present, Federal agencies already are required to consult with us under
section 7 of the Act on activities they authorize, fund, or carry out
that may affect the nine Bexar County invertebrates. Federal agencies
also must consult with us if their activities may affect critical
habitat. Designation of critical habitat, therefore, could result in an
additional economic impact on small entities due to the requirement to
reinitiate consultation for ongoing Federal activities (see Application
of the ``Adverse Modification'' Standard section).
In our final economic analysis (FEA) of the critical habitat
designation, we evaluated the potential economic effects on small
business entities resulting from conservation actions related to the
listing of the nine Bexar County invertebrates and the designation of
critical habitat. The analysis is based on the estimated impacts
associated with the rulemaking as described in Chapters 1 through 4 and
Appendix A.1 of the FEA and evaluates the potential for economic
impacts related to landowners that are small developers, including: (1)
New single-family housing builders, (2) new multiple housing builders,
(3) new housing operative builders, and (4) land subdividers.
The FEA estimates that 20 to 149 small developers (up to 4.5
percent) may be affected by this rule. Annualized perpetuity impacts
per entity range from $8,910 to $15,500. This impact is less than 0.25
percent of average annual sales of these businesses (average annual
sales are $6.36 million) (Industrial Economics 2011, p. A-7).
In summary, we considered whether this designation will result in a
significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities.
Based on the above reasoning and currently available information, we
conclude that this rule will not result in a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, we are
certifying that the designation of critical habitat for nine Bexar
County invertebrates will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, and a regulatory flexibility
analysis is not required.
[[Page 8483]]
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use--Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use) requires
agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking
certain actions. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has provided
guidance for implementing this Executive Order that outlines nine
outcomes that may constitute ``a significant adverse effect'' when
compared to not taking the regulatory action under consideration.
As described in Chapter 4 of the FEA, critical habitat designation
for the nine Bexar County invertebrates is anticipated to impact
development and transportation activities. Resource extraction, energy
production, and distribution are not expected to be affected. Because
none of the outcomes that may constitute ``a significant adverse
effect'' are relevant to this analysis, energy-related impacts within
the critical habitat designation are not anticipated.
The economic analysis finds that extraction, energy production, and
distribution are not expected to be affected (Industrial Economics
2011, p. A-8) and that none of the nine outcomes in OMB's guidance are
relevant to this analysis. Thus, based on information in the economic
analysis, energy-related impacts associated with nine Bexar County
invertebrates' conservation activities within critical habitat are not
expected. As such, the designation of critical habitat is not expected
to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use.
Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action, and no
Statement of Energy Effects is required.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
et seq.), we make the following findings:
(1) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a
Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation
that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or Tribal
governments, or the private sector, and includes both ``Federal
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.''
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or Tribal governments'' with two
exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of Federal assistance.'' It also
excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal
program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing Federal
program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State,
local, and Tribal governments under entitlement authority,'' if the
provision would ``increase the stringency of conditions of assistance''
or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's
responsibility to provide funding,'' and the State, local, or Tribal
governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly. At the time of
enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; Aid to Families
with Dependent Children work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps;
Social Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants;
Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family
Support Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement. ``Federal
private sector mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose an
enforceable duty upon the private sector, except (i) a condition of
Federal assistance or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a
voluntary Federal program.''
The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally
binding duty on non-Federal Government entities or private parties.
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must
ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat under section 7. While non-Federal entities that receive
Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require
approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be
indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally
binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the
extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they
receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid
program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act does not apply, nor will
critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs
listed above onto State governments.
(2) We do not believe that this rule will significantly or uniquely
affect small governments because the designation of critical habitat
imposes no obligations on State or local governments. By definition,
Federal agencies are not considered small entities, although the
activities they fund or permit may be proposed or carried out by small
entities. Consequently, we do not believe that the critical habitat
designation will significantly or uniquely affect small government
entities. As such, a Small Government Agency Plan is not required.
Takings--Executive Order 12630
In accordance with Executive Order 12630 (Government Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights),
we have analyzed the potential takings implications of designating
critical habitat for the nine Bexar County invertebrates in a takings
implications assessment. As discussed above, the designation of
critical habitat affects only Federal actions. Although private parties
that receive Federal funding, assistance, or require approval or
authorization from a Federal agency for an action may be indirectly
impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally binding
duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat
rests squarely on the Federal agency. The FEA found that this
designation will not affect a substantial number of small entities, but
there could be costs of development restrictions in the form of reduced
land values. A number of the private landowners are not small
businesses. However, we found that 20 of 149 small developers may be
affected by this designation, but the impact is less than 0.25 percent
of average annual sales of these businesses. However, based on
information contained in the FEA and described within this document, it
is not likely that economic impacts to a property owner will be of a
sufficient magnitude to support a takings action. We anticipate that
this critical habitat designation will result in insignificant takings
implications on these lands. Therefore, the takings implications
assessment concludes that this designation of critical habitat for nine
Bexar County invertebrates does not pose significant takings
implications for lands within or affected by the designation.
Federalism--Executive Order 13132
In accordance with Executive Order 13132 (Federalism), this rule
does not have significant Federalism effects. A federalism impact
summary statement is not required. In keeping with Department of the
Interior and Department of Commerce policy, we requested information
from, and coordinated development of, this critical habitat designation
with appropriate State resource agencies in Texas. We received comments
from the Texas State Comptroller and Texas Department of Transportation
and have
[[Page 8484]]
addressed them in the Summary of Comments and Recommendations section
of this rule. The designation of critical habitat in areas currently
occupied by the nine Bexar County invertebrates imposes no additional
restrictions to those currently in place and, therefore, has little
incremental impact on State and local governments and their activities.
The designation may have some benefit to these governments in that the
areas that contain the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the species are more clearly defined, and the elements
of the features of the habitat necessary to the conservation of the
species are specifically identified. This information does not alter
where and what federally sponsored activities may occur. However, it
may assist local governments in long-range planning (rather than having
them wait for case-by-case section 7 consultations to occur).
Where State and local governments require approval or authorization
from a Federal agency for actions that may affect critical habitat,
consultation under section 7(a)(2) would be required. While non-Federal
entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that
otherwise require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for
an action, may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical
habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency.
Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988
In accordance with Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform),
the Office of the Solicitor has determined that the rule does not
unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the applicable
standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We are
designating critical habitat in accordance with the provisions of the
Act. This final rule uses standard property descriptions and identifies
the elements of physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the nine Bexar County invertebrates within the
designated areas to assist the public in understanding the habitat
needs of the species.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
This rule does not contain any new collections of information that
require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This rule will not impose recordkeeping or
reporting requirements on State or local governments, individuals,
businesses, or organizations. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and
a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
It is our position that, outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to prepare
environmental analyses pursuant to the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) in connection with designating
critical habitat under the Act. We published a notice outlining our
reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on October 25,
1983 (48 FR 49244). This position was upheld by the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495
(9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S. 1042 (1996)). The designation of
critical habitat for the nine Bexar County invertebrates is entirely
within the 5th Circuit jurisdiction; therefore, we did not prepare an
environmental analysis in connection with this critical habitat
designation.
Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994
(Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and
Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights,
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act),
we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with
tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge
that tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal
public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make
information available to tribes.
We determined that there are no Tribal lands occupied by the nine
Bexar County invertebrates at the time of listing that contain the
features essential for conservation of the species, and no Tribal lands
unoccupied by the invertebrates that are essential for the conservation
of the species. Therefore, we are not designating critical habitat for
the nine Bexar County invertebrates on Tribal lands.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited is available on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the Austin
Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authors
The primary authors of this rulemaking are the staff members of the
Austin Ecological Services Field Office.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50
of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.
0
2. Amend Sec. 17.11(h) by revising the entries for ``Meshweaver,
Government Canyon Bat Cave'' and ``Spider, Government Canyon Bat Cave''
under ARACHNIDS in the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife to
read as follows:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
[[Page 8485]]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Vertebrate population
----------------------------------------------------------- Historic range where endangered or Status When Critical Special
Common name Specific name threatened listed habitat rules
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Arachnids
* * * * * * *
Meshweaver, Government Canyon Bat Cicurina vespera..... U.S.A. (TX).......... NA................... E 706 17.95(g) NA.
Cave.
* * * * * * *
Spider, Government Canyon Bat Cave. Neoleptoneta microps. U.S.A. (TX).......... NA................... E 706 17.95(g) NA.
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
3. Amend Sec. 17.95 by:
0
a. In paragraph (g), revising the critical habitat entry for the
Cokendolpher Cave Harvestman (Texella cokendolpheri);
0
b. In paragraph (g), revising the critical habitat entry for the Braken
Bat Cave Meshweaver (Cicurina venii);
0
c. In paragraph (g), redesignating the critical habitat entry for the
Kauai Cave Wolf Spider (Adelocosa anops) so that it is in the order in
which it appears in the table at Sec. 17.11(h);
0
d. In paragraph (g), adding a critical habitat entry for the Government
Canyon Bat Cave Meshweaver (Cicurina vespera) in the same alphabetical
order in which the species appears in Sec. 17.11(h);
0
e. In paragraph (g), revising the critical habitat entry for the Madla
Cave Meshweaver (Cicurina madla);
0
f. In paragraph (g), revising the critical habitat entry for the Robber
Baron Cave Meshweaver (Cicurina baronia);
0
g. In paragraph (g), adding a critical habitat entry for the Government
Canyon Bat Cave Spider (Neoleptoneta microps) in the same alphabetical
order in which the species appears in Sec. 17.11(h);
0
h. In paragraph (i), revising the critical habitat entry for the
Helotes Mold Beetle (Batrisodes venyivi);
0
i. In paragraph (i), revising the critical habitat entry for the Beetle
(no common name) (Rhadine exilis); and
0
j. In paragraph (i), revising the critical habitat entry for the Beetle
(no common name) (Rhadine infernalis), to read as follows.
Sec. 17.95 Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.
* * * * *
(g) Arachnids.
Cokendolpher Cave Harvestman (Texella cokendolpheri)
(1) Critical habitat for the Cokendolpher Cave harvestman in Bexar
County, Texas, occurs in Unit 20 as described in this entry and
depicted on Map 1 (index map) and Map 2 in this entry.
(2) The primary constituent elements of critical habitat for the
Cokendolpher Cave harvestman are:
(i) Karst-forming rock containing subterranean spaces (caves and
connected mesocaverns) with stable temperatures, high humidities (near
saturation), and suitable substrates (for example, spaces between and
underneath rocks for foraging and sheltering) that are free of
contaminants; and
(ii) Surface and subsurface sources (such as plants and their
roots, fruits, and leaves, and animal (e.g., cave cricket) eggs, feces,
and carcasses) that provide nutrient input into the karst ecosystem.
(3) Developed lands that do not contain the subsurface primary
constituent elements (see paragraph (2)(i) of this entry) and that
existed on the effective date of this rule are not considered to be
critical habitat.
(4) Data layers defining this map unit were created using a
geographic information system (GIS), which included cave locations,
karst zone maps, roads, property boundaries, 2010 aerial photography,
and USGS 7.5' quadrangles. Points were placed on the GIS.
(5) Index map of Bexar County invertebrates critical habitat units,
Bexar County, Texas, follows:
[[Page 8486]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE12.001
(6) Unit 20: Bexar County, Texas.
(i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 552126, 3264361; 552287,
3264522; 552357, 3264610; 552436, 3264673; 552536, 3264710; 552654,
3264726; 552756, 3264714; 552840, 3264685; 552920, 3264644; 552991,
3264506; 553001, 3264408; 552930, 3264263; 552813, 3264165; 552683,
3264104; 552571, 3264018; 552485, 3263914; 552285, 3263659; 552175,
3263484; 552124, 3263435; 552081, 3263341; 551949, 3263214; 551826,
3263155; 551728, 3263159; 551639, 3263221; 551567, 3263343; 551569,
3263474; 551606, 3263569; 551704, 3263739; 551777, 3263863; 551969,
3264165; 552126, 3264361.
(ii) Note: Map 2 of Unit 20 follows:
[[Page 8487]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE12.002
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
Braken Bat Cave Meshweaver (Cicurina venii)
(1) Critical habitat for the Braken Bat Cave meshweaver in Bexar
County, Texas, occurs in Unit 15, as described in this entry and
depicted on Map 2 in this entry. Unit 15 is also depicted on Map 1
(index map) provided at paragraph (5) of the entry for the Cokendolpher
Cave harvestman in this paragraph (g).
(2) The primary constituent elements of, and the statements
regarding developed lands in, critical habitat for the Braken Bat Cave
meshweaver are identical to those set forth at paragraphs (2) and (3)
of the entry for the Cokendolpher Cave harvestman in this paragraph
(g).
(3) Data layers defining this map unit were created using a
geographic information system (GIS), which included cave locations,
karst zone maps, roads, property boundaries, 2010 aerial photography,
and USGS 7.5' quadrangles. Points were placed on the GIS.
(4) Unit 15: Bexar County, Texas.
(i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 522689, 3256455; 522687,
3256517; 522703, 3256601; 522765, 3256718; 522911, 3256823; 523046,
3256851; 523177, 3256830; 523344, 3256801; 523479, 3256747; 523658,
3256674; 523725, 3256656; 523834, 3256603; 523918, 3256523; 523969,
3256419; 523978, 3256293; 523885, 3256159; 523885, 3256069; 523822,
3256015; 523674, 3255915; 523547, 3255873; 523414, 3255874; 523281,
3255933; 523201, 3256024; 523017, 3256131; 522987, 3256149; 522940,
3256160; 522894, 3256168; 522869, 3256174; 522790, 3256246; 522722,
3256345; 522689, 3256455.
(ii) Note: Map 2 of Unit 15 follows:
[[Page 8488]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE12.003
Government Canyon Bat Cave Meshweaver (Cicurina vespera)
(1) Critical habitat for the Government Canyon Bat Cave meshweaver
in Bexar County, Texas, occurs in Unit 1b, as described in this entry
and depicted on Map 2 in this entry. Unit 1b is also depicted on Map 1
(index map) provided at paragraph (5) of the entry for the Cokendolpher
Cave harvestman in this paragraph (g).
(2) The primary constituent elements of, and the statements
regarding developed lands in, critical habitat for the Government
Canyon Bat Cave meshweaver are identical to those set forth at
paragraphs (2) and (3) of the entry for the Cokendolpher Cave
harvestman in this paragraph (g).
(3) Data layers defining this map unit were created using a
geographic information system (GIS), which included cave locations,
karst zone maps, roads, property boundaries, 2010 aerial photography,
and USGS 7.5' quadrangles. Points were placed on the GIS.
(4) Unit 1b: Bexar County, Texas.
(i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 522172, 3270656; 522202,
3270794; 522259, 3270889; 522375, 3270977; 522521, 3271014; 522677,
3270988; 522793, 3270905; 522880, 3270758; 522894, 3270605; 522843,
3270457; 522724, 3270335; 522571, 3270287; 522401, 3270312; 522280,
3270382; 522186, 3270538; 522172, 3270656.
(ii) Note: Map 2 of Units 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 1e, and 1f follows:
[[Page 8489]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE12.004
Madla Cave Meshweaver (Cicurina madla)
(1) Critical habitat for the Madla Cave meshweaver in Bexar County,
Texas, occurs in Units 1a, 1c, 1d, 1e, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 17, and 22, as
described in this entry and depicted on Maps 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 in
this entry. Units 1a, 1c, 1d, and 1e are depicted on Map 2, which is
provided at paragraph (4)(ii) of the entry for the Government Canyon
Bat Cave meshweaver in this paragraph (g). Units 1a, 1c, 1d, 1e, 2, 3,
5, 6, 8, 9, 17, and 22 are also depicted on Map 1 (index map) provided
at paragraph (5) of the entry for the Cokendolpher Cave harvestman in
this paragraph (g).
(2) Eight caves and their associated karst management areas
established under the La Cantera Habitat Conservation Plan section
10(a)(1)(B) permit are adjacent to or within the boundaries of Units
1e, 3, 6, 8, and 17, but are not designated as critical habitat. These
caves are Canyon Ranch Pit, Fat Man's Nightmare Cave, Scenic Overlook
Cave and the surrounding approximately 75 ac (30 ha) adjacent to Unit
1e; Helotes Blowhole and Helotes Hilltop Caves and the surrounding
approximately 25 ac (10 ha) adjacent to Unit 3; John Wagner Cave No. 3
and the surrounding approximately 4 ac (1.6 ha) adjacent to Unit 6;
Hills and Dales Pit and the surrounding approximately 70 ac (28 ha)
adjacent to Unit 8; and Madla's Cave and the surrounding approximately
5 ac (2 ha) within Unit 17.
(3) The primary constituent elements of, and the statements
regarding developed lands in, critical habitat for the Madla Cave
meshweaver are identical to those set forth at paragraphs (2) and (3)
of the entry for the Cokendolpher Cave harvestman in this paragraph
(g).
(4) Data layers defining this map unit were created using a
geographic information system (GIS), which included cave locations,
karst zone maps, roads, property boundaries, 2010
[[Page 8490]]
aerial photography, and USGS 7.5' quadrangles. Points were placed on
the GIS.
(5) Unit 1a: Bexar County, Texas.
(i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 522870, 3272900; 522872,
3273024; 522919, 3273156; 523000, 3273241; 523124, 3273312; 523284,
3273323; 523438, 3273258; 523618, 3273132; 523729, 3273041; 523797,
3272836; 523784, 3272720; 523724, 3272603; 523633, 3272522; 523515,
3272464; 523406, 3272460; 523276, 3272492; 523041, 3272654; 522939,
3272737; 522870, 3272900.
(ii) Note: Unit 1a is depicted on Map 2, provided at paragraph
(4)(ii) of the entry for the Government Canyon Bat Cave meshweaver in
this paragraph (g).
(6) Unit 1c: Bexar County, Texas.
(i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 524033, 3271973; 524063,
3272110; 524119, 3272206; 524235, 3272294; 524382, 3272331; 524537,
3272305; 524654, 3272222; 524740, 3272075; 524754, 3271922; 524703,
3271773; 524585, 3271652; 524431, 3271604; 524262, 3271629; 524140,
3271699; 524047, 3271855; 524033, 3271973.
(ii) Note: Unit 1c is depicted on Map 2, provided at paragraph
(4)(ii) of the entry for the Government Canyon Bat Cave meshweaver in
this paragraph (g).
(7) Unit 1d: Bexar County, Texas.
(i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 524739, 3270323; 524739,
3270454; 524798, 3270590; 524917, 3270699; 525091, 3270744; 525462,
3270937; 525613, 3271016; 525757, 3271026; 525893, 3270977; 526000,
3270883; 526059, 3270741; 526062, 3270603; 525980, 3270370; 525836,
3270243; 525700, 3270206; 525289, 3270072; 525153, 3270020; 525016,
3270023; 524883, 3270092; 524788, 3270191; 524739, 3270323.
(ii) Note: Unit 1d is depicted on Map 2, provided at paragraph
(4)(ii) of the entry for the Government Canyon Bat Cave meshweaver in
this paragraph (g).
(8) Unit 1e: Bexar County, Texas.
(i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 526403, 3273634; 526465,
3273472; 526487, 3273282; 526506, 3273157; 526879, 3273092; 527025,
3273129; 527180, 3273102; 527297, 3273019; 527383, 3272873; 527398,
3272719; 527346, 3272571; 527228, 3272449; 527075, 3272402; 526905,
3272426; 526783, 3272497; 526472, 3272434; 526435, 3272318; 526460,
3272223; 526443, 3272077; 526356, 3271945; 526158, 3271842; 525997,
3271842; 525854, 3271930; 525762, 3272044; 525703, 3272205; 525729,
3272352; 525802, 3272494; 525890, 3272776; 525876, 3272894; 525858,
3272918; 525912, 3272925; 525904, 3272945; 525903, 3272947; 525903,
3272949; 525902, 3272950; 525902, 3272952; 525901, 3272954; 525901,
3272956; 525900, 3272957; 525900, 3272959; 525899, 3272961; 525899,
3272963; 525898, 3272965; 525898, 3272966; 525898, 3272968; 525898,
3272970; 525897, 3272972; 525897, 3272974; 525897, 3272975; 525897,
3272977; 525897, 3272979; 525897, 3272981; 525897, 3272983; 525897,
3272985; 525897, 3272986; 525897, 3272988; 525897, 3272990; 525897,
3272992; 525897, 3272994; 525897, 3272996; 525897, 3272997; 525898,
3272999; 525898, 3273001; 525898, 3273003; 525899, 3273005; 525899,
3273007; 525899, 3273008; 525900, 3273010; 525900, 3273012; 525901,
3273014; 525901, 3273015; 525902, 3273017; 525902, 3273019; 525903,
3273021; 525904, 3273022; 525904, 3273024; 525905, 3273026; 525906,
3273027; 525906, 3273029; 525907, 3273031; 525908, 3273032; 525909,
3273034; 525910, 3273036; 525911, 3273037; 525912, 3273039; 525913,
3273040; 525914, 3273042; 525915, 3273044; 525916, 3273045; 525917,
3273047; 525918, 3273048; 525919, 3273049; 525920, 3273051; 525921,
3273052; 525923, 3273054; 525924, 3273055; 525925, 3273056; 525926,
3273058; 525928, 3273059; 525929, 3273060; 525930, 3273062; 525932,
3273063; 525933, 3273064; 525934, 3273065; 525936, 3273066; 525937,
3273068; 525939, 3273069; 525940, 3273070; 525942, 3273071; 525943,
3273072; 525945, 3273073; 525946, 3273074; 525948, 3273075; 525949,
3273076; 525951, 3273077; 525953, 3273078; 525954, 3273078; 525956,
3273079; 525958, 3273080; 526305, 3273293; 526303, 3273302; 526276,
3273412; 526276, 3273412; 526254, 3273499; 526202, 3273564; 526023,
3273523; 525917, 3273448; 525824, 3273382; 525786, 3273440; 525587,
3273259; 525586, 3273260; 525572, 3273363; 525594, 3273505; 525693,
3273659; 525876, 3273765; 526048, 3273798; 526253, 3273754; 526403,
3273634.
(ii) Note: Unit 1e is depicted on Map 2, provided at paragraph
(4)(ii) of the entry for the Government Canyon Bat Cave meshweaver in
this paragraph (g).
(9) Unit 2: Bexar County, Texas.
(i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 527508, 3276359; 527444,
3276287; 527343, 3276226; 527229, 3276204; 527117, 3276216; 527116,
3276253; 527085, 3276279; 527003, 3276270; 526933, 3276334; 526905,
3276386; 526783, 3276386; 526851, 3276555; 526850, 3276556; 526864,
3276662; 526908, 3276736; 526960, 3276801; 527010, 3276865; 527213,
3277098; 527281, 3277166; 527392, 3277230; 527536, 3277252; 527711,
3277190; 527805, 3277102; 527857, 3277003; 527869, 3276903; 527861,
3276787; 527803, 3276674; 527699, 3276578; 527644, 3276515; 527643,
3276397; 527630, 3276386; 527530, 3276384; 527508, 3276359.
(ii) Note: Map 3 of Unit 2 follows:
[[Page 8491]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE12.005
(10) Unit 3: Bexar County, Texas.
(i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 529906, 3272892; 529975,
3272934; 529993, 3272946; 529996, 3272945; 529998, 3272943; 530001,
3272942; 530004, 3272940; 530006, 3272938; 530007, 3272938; 530020,
3272926; 530026, 3272920; 530030, 3272917; 530032, 3272915; 530043,
3272905; 530045, 3272903; 530045, 3272902; 530046, 3272901; 530047,
3272900; 530049, 3272897; 530050, 3272895; 530050, 3272895; 530120,
3272932; 530134, 3272895; 530165, 3272898; 530159, 3272895; 530124,
3272875; 530112, 3272843; 530083, 3272805; 530081, 3272805; 530049,
3272774; 530020, 3272734; 529995, 3272714; 529909, 3272671; 529790,
3272649; 529688, 3272658; 529646, 3272723; 529589, 3272792; 529584,
3272798; 529600, 3272911; 529558, 3272947; 529514, 3272978; 529473,
3272968; 529445, 3273019; 529423, 3273086; 529449, 3273173; 529482,
3273196; 529507, 3273216; 529496, 3273253; 529504, 3273344; 529564,
3273416; 529676, 3273477; 529771, 3273499; 529870, 3273496; 529918,
3273447; 529970, 3273351; 530058, 3273320; 530110, 3273233; 530105,
3273183; 530099, 3273138; 530128, 3273120; 530096, 3273123; 530057,
3273126; 530055, 3273143; 530048, 3273180; 530057, 3273190; 530057,
3273190; 530049, 3273191; 530038, 3273192; 530002, 3273195; 529946,
3273200; 529916, 3273202; 529898, 3273204; 529897, 3273204; 529680,
3273221; 529753, 3273117; 529764, 3273100; 529836, 3272993; 529845,
3272981; 529906, 3272892.
(ii) Note: Map 4 of Units 3 and 4 follows:
[[Page 8492]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE12.006
(11) Unit 5: Bexar County, Texas.
(i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 529536, 3275753; 529533,
3275931; 529585, 3276056; 529741, 3276191; 529927, 3276249; 530112,
3276208; 530275, 3276093; 530350, 3275987; 530318, 3275927; 530238,
3275838; 530169, 3275776; 530109, 3275735; 529970, 3275629; 529950,
3275603; 529936, 3275565; 529781, 3275523; 529719, 3275529; 529621,
3275548; 529566, 3275611; 529536, 3275753.
(ii) Note: Map 5 of Units 5, 6, and 17 follows:
[[Page 8493]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE12.007
(12) Unit 6: Bexar County, Texas.
(i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 531676, 3275515; 531639,
3275342; 531576, 3275302; 531483, 3275283; 531331, 3275337; 531242,
3275350; 531189, 3275346; 531193, 3275501; 531094, 3275501; 531094,
3275378; 531072, 3275398; 530953, 3275478; 530909, 3275521; 530851,
3275661; 530871, 3275702; 530981, 3275903; 531119, 3275970; 531335,
3275950; 531512, 3275851; 531615, 3275701; 531676, 3275515.
(ii) Note: Unit 6 is depicted on Map 5, provided at paragraph
(10)(ii) of this entry.
(13) Unit 8: Bexar County, Texas.
(i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 535007, 3274657; 535063,
3274624; 535096, 3274626; 535133, 3274610; 535173, 3274570; 535222,
3274516; 535282, 3274478; 535302, 3274450; 535290, 3274359; 535238,
3274250; 535215, 3274045; 535226, 3273947; 535209, 3273836; 535160,
3273741; 535056, 3273640; 535027, 3273631; 535026, 3273654; 535022,
3273714; 535018, 3273721; 535013, 3273730; 534992, 3273775; 534988,
3273784; 534962, 3273838; 534962, 3273838; 534936, 3273892; 534909,
3273947; 534909, 3273947; 534883, 3274002; 534856, 3274057; 534856,
3274057; 534813, 3274142; 534708, 3274141; 534625, 3274140; 534519,
3274140; 534389, 3274145; 534389, 3274132; 534168, 3274322; 534058,
3274551; 533966, 3274645; 533893, 3274683; 533848, 3274736; 533839,
3274809; 533853, 3274895; 533905, 3274965; 534037, 3275030; 534156,
3275037;
[[Page 8494]]
534290, 3274997; 534292, 3274995; 534881, 3274809; 534894, 3274782;
534931, 3274737; 534962, 3274695; 535007, 3274657.
(ii) Note: Map 6 of Unit 8 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE12.008
(14) Unit 9: Bexar County, Texas.
(i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 536971, 3273194; 537058,
3273204; 537958, 3273349; 538025, 3273049; 538011, 3273033; 537743,
3272819; 537663, 3272828; 537645, 3272742; 537602, 3272707; 537551,
3272712; 537500, 3272684; 537412, 3272713; 537309, 3272793; 537213,
3272912; 537167, 3273017; 537121, 3273038; 537084, 3273013; 537008,
3273129; 536943, 3273082; 536897, 3273099; 536879, 3273117; 536871,
3273154; 536887, 3273183; 536971, 3273194.
(ii) Note: Map 7 of Unit 9 follows:
[[Page 8495]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE12.009
(15) Unit 17: Bexar County, Texas.
(i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 528980, 3275191; 529043,
3275247; 529120, 3275242; 529245, 3275219; 529327, 3275184; 529348,
3275167; 529492, 3275167; 529613, 3275113; 529800, 3275081; 529870,
3274953; 529819, 3274777; 529698, 3274627; 529486, 3274528; 529360,
3274615; 529335, 3274712; 529174, 3274840; 528968, 3274859; 528957,
3275049; 528980, 3275191.
(ii) Not including land within and bounded by the following UTM
Zone 14N, North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N):
529490, 3275008; 529490, 3275006; 529490, 3275005; 529490, 3275003;
529490, 3275002; 529489, 3275001; 529489, 3274999; 529489, 3274998;
529489, 3274997; 529489, 3274995; 529489, 3274994; 529488, 3274993;
529488, 3274992; 529489, 3274991; 529489, 3274986; 529489, 3274983;
529489, 3274982; 529482, 3274919; 529329, 3274930; 529337, 3274993;
529337, 3274993; 529337, 3274994; 529336, 3274995; 529337, 3274997;
529337, 3274998; 529336, 3274999; 529336, 3275001; 529336, 3275002;
529336, 3275003; 529336, 3275005; 529336, 3275006; 529336, 3275008;
529336, 3275009; 529336, 3275010; 529336, 3275012; 529336, 3275013;
529336, 3275014; 529336, 3275016; 529337, 3275017; 529337, 3275018;
529337, 3275020; 529337, 3275021; 529337, 3275022; 529338, 3275023;
529338, 3275025; 529338, 3275026; 529339, 3275027; 529339, 3275029;
529339, 3275030; 529340, 3275031; 529340, 3275033; 529341, 3275034;
529341, 3275035; 529342, 3275036; 529342, 3275038; 529343, 3275039;
529343, 3275040; 529344, 3275041; 529344, 3275042; 529345, 3275044;
529346, 3275045; 529346, 3275046; 529347, 3275047; 529348, 3275048;
529348, 3275049; 529349, 3275050; 529350, 3275052; 529351, 3275053;
529351,
[[Page 8496]]
3275054; 529352, 3275055; 529353, 3275056; 529354, 3275057; 529355,
3275058; 529356, 3275059; 529357, 3275060; 529358, 3275061; 529359,
3275062; 529359, 3275063; 529360, 3275064; 529361, 3275065; 529362,
3275066; 529363, 3275066; 529364, 3275067; 529366, 3275068; 529367,
3275069; 529368, 3275070; 529369, 3275070; 529370, 3275071; 529371,
3275072; 529372, 3275073; 529373, 3275073; 529374, 3275074; 529376,
3275075; 529377, 3275075; 529378, 3275076; 529379, 3275077; 529380,
3275077; 529382, 3275078; 529383, 3275078; 529384, 3275079; 529385,
3275079; 529387, 3275080; 529388, 3275080; 529389, 3275081; 529390,
3275081; 529392, 3275081; 529393, 3275082; 529394, 3275082; 529396,
3275082; 529397, 3275083; 529398, 3275083; 529399, 3275083; 529401,
3275083; 529402, 3275084; 529403, 3275084; 529405, 3275084; 529406,
3275084; 529407, 3275084; 529409, 3275084; 529410, 3275084; 529412,
3275084; 529413, 3275084; 529414, 3275084; 529416, 3275084; 529417,
3275084; 529418, 3275084; 529420, 3275084; 529421, 3275084; 529422,
3275084; 529424, 3275084; 529425, 3275083; 529426, 3275083; 529428,
3275083; 529429, 3275083; 529430, 3275082; 529431, 3275082; 529433,
3275082; 529434, 3275081; 529435, 3275081; 529437, 3275081; 529438,
3275080; 529439, 3275080; 529440, 3275079; 529442, 3275079; 529443,
3275078; 529444, 3275078; 529445, 3275077; 529447, 3275077; 529448,
3275076; 529449, 3275075; 529450, 3275075; 529451, 3275074; 529452,
3275073; 529454, 3275073; 529455, 3275072; 529456, 3275071; 529457,
3275070; 529458, 3275070; 529459, 3275069; 529460, 3275068; 529461,
3275067; 529462, 3275066; 529463, 3275066; 529464, 3275065; 529465,
3275064; 529466, 3275063; 529467, 3275062; 529468, 3275061; 529469,
3275060; 529470, 3275059; 529471, 3275058; 529472, 3275057; 529473,
3275056; 529473, 3275055; 529474, 3275054; 529475, 3275053; 529476,
3275052; 529477, 3275050; 529477, 3275049; 529478, 3275048; 529479,
3275047; 529479, 3275046; 529480, 3275045; 529481, 3275044; 529481,
3275042; 529482, 3275041; 529482, 3275040; 529483, 3275039; 529484,
3275038; 529484, 3275036; 529485, 3275035; 529485, 3275034; 529486,
3275033; 529486, 3275031; 529486, 3275030; 529487, 3275029; 529487,
3275027; 529487, 3275026; 529488, 3275025; 529488, 3275023; 529488,
3275022; 529489, 3275021; 529489, 3275020; 529489, 3275018; 529489,
3275017; 529489, 3275016; 529489, 3275014; 529490, 3275013; 529490,
3275012; 529490, 3275010; 529490, 3275009; 529490, 3275008.
(iii) Note: Unit 17 is depicted on Map 5, provided at paragraph
(11)(ii) of this entry.
(16) Unit 22: Bexar County, Texas.
(i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 533735, 3278278; 533765,
3278416; 533821, 3278511; 533938, 3278599; 534084, 3278636; 534240,
3278610; 534356, 3278527; 534443, 3278380; 534457, 3278227; 534406,
3278079; 534287, 3277957; 534134, 3277909; 533964, 3277934; 533843,
3278004; 533749, 3278160; 533735, 3278278.
(ii) Note: Map 8 of Unit 22 follows:
[[Page 8497]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE12.010
Robber Baron Cave Meshweaver (Cicurina baronia)
(1) Critical habitat for the Robber Baron Cave meshweaver in Bexar
County, Texas, occurs in Units 20 and 25. Unit 20 is described as set
forth, and depicted on Map 2 provided at paragraph (6)(ii) of the entry
for the Cokendolpher Cave harvestman in this paragraph (g). Unit 25 is
described in this entry and depicted on Map 3 in this entry. Units 20
and 25 are also depicted on Map 1 (index map) provided in paragraph (5)
of the entry for the Cokendolpher Cave harvestman in this paragraph
(g).
(2) The primary constituent elements of, and the statements
regarding developed lands in, critical habitat for the Robber Baron
Cave meshweaver are identical to those set forth in paragraphs (2) and
(3) of the entry for the Cokendolpher Cave harvestman in this paragraph
(g).
(3) Data layers defining this map unit were created using a
geographic information system (GIS), which included cave locations,
karst zone maps, roads, property boundaries, 2010 aerial photography,
and USGS 7.5' quadrangles. Points were placed on the GIS.
(4) Unit 20: Bexar County, Texas.
(i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 552126, 3264361; 552287,
3264522; 552357, 3264610; 552436, 3264673; 552536, 3264710; 552654,
3264726; 552756, 3264714; 552840, 3264685; 552920, 3264644; 552991,
3264506; 553001, 3264408; 552930, 3264263; 552813, 3264165; 552683,
3264104; 552571, 3264018; 552485, 3263914; 552285, 3263659; 552175,
3263484; 552124, 3263435; 552081, 3263341; 551949, 3263214; 551826,
3263155; 551728, 3263159; 551639, 3263221; 551567, 3263343; 551569,
3263474; 551606, 3263569; 551704, 3263739;
[[Page 8498]]
551777, 3263863; 551969, 3264165; 552126, 3264361.
(ii) Note: Map 2 of Unit 20 is provided at paragraph (6)(ii) of the
entry for the Cokendolpher Cave harvestman in this paragraph (g).
(5) Unit 25: Bexar County, Texas.
(i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 549856, 3258720; 549779,
3258722; 549776, 3258797; 549750, 3258818; 549485, 3258818; 549451,
3258796; 549450, 3258759; 549391, 3258759; 549302, 3258907; 549288,
3259025; 549281, 3259323; 549294, 3259345; 549486, 3259471; 549700,
3259499; 549933, 3259412; 549943, 3259217; 549819, 3259100; 549840,
3259045; 549869, 3259019; 549861, 3258961; 549846, 3258934; 549846,
3258909; 549891, 3258888; 549961, 3258869; 549968, 3258839; 549972,
3258752; 549856, 3258720.
(ii) Note: Map 3 of Unit 25 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE12.011
Government Canyon Bat Cave Spider (Neoleptoneta microps)
(1) Critical habitat for the Government Canyon Bat Cave spider in
Bexar County, Texas, occurs in Unit 1b, as described at paragraph
(4)(i) of the entry for the Government Canyon Bat Cave meshweaver in
this paragraph (g). Unit 1b is also depicted on Map 1 (index map)
provided at paragraph (5) of the entry for the Cokendolpher Cave
harvestman in this paragraph (g), and on Map 2 (Unit 1b) provided at
paragraph (4)(ii) of the entry for the Government Canyon Bat Cave
meshweaver in this paragraph (g).
(2) The primary constituent elements of, and statements regarding
developed lands in, critical habitat for the Government Canyon Bat Cave
spider are
[[Page 8499]]
identical to those set forth at paragraphs (2) and (3) of the entry for
the Cokendolpher Cave harvestman in this paragraph (g).
(3) Data layers defining this map unit were created using a
geographic information system (GIS), which included cave locations,
karst zone maps, roads, property boundaries, 2010 aerial photography,
and USGS 7.5' quadrangles. Points were placed on the GIS.
(4) Unit 1b: Bexar County, Texas.
(i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 522172, 3270656; 522202,
3270794; 522259, 3270889; 522375, 3270977; 522521, 3271014; 522677,
3270988; 522793, 3270905; 522880, 3270758; 522894, 3270605; 522843,
3270457; 522724, 3270335; 522571, 3270287; 522401, 3270312; 522280,
3270382; 522186, 3270538; 522172, 3270656.
(ii) Note: Map 2 of Unit 1b is provided at paragraph (4)(ii) in the
entry for the Government Canyon Cave meshweaver in this paragraph (g).
* * * * *
(i) Insects.
* * * * *
Helotes Mold Beetle (Batrisodes venyivi)
(1) Critical habitat for the Helotes mold beetle in Bexar County,
Texas, occurs in Units 1e, 3, and 5 as described in this entry and
depicted on Maps 1 (index map), 2, 4, and 5 of this entry.
(2) The primary constituent elements of critical habitat for
Batrisodes venyivi are:
(i) Karst-forming rock containing subterranean spaces (caves and
connected mesocaverns) with stable temperatures, high humidities (near
saturation), and suitable substrates (for example, spaces between and
underneath rocks for foraging and sheltering) that are free of
contaminants; and
(ii) Surface and subsurface sources (such as plants and their
roots, fruits, and leaves, and animal (e.g., cave cricket) eggs, feces,
and carcasses) that provide nutrient input into the karst ecosystem.
(3) Developed lands that do not contain the subsurface primary
constituent elements (see paragraph (2)(i) of this entry) and that
existed on the effective date of this rule are not considered to be
critical habitat.
(4) Data layers defining this map unit were created using a
geographic information system (GIS), which included cave locations,
karst zone maps, roads, property boundaries, 2010 aerial photography,
and USGS 7.5' quadrangles. Points were placed on the GIS.
(5) Index map of Bexar County invertebrates critical habitat units,
Bexar County, Texas, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE12.012
(6) Unit 1e: Bexar County, Texas.
(i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 526403, 3273634; 526465,
3273472; 526487, 3273282; 526506, 3273157; 526879, 3273092; 527025,
3273129; 527180, 3273102; 527297, 3273019; 527383, 3272873; 527398,
3272719; 527346, 3272571; 527228, 3272449; 527075, 3272402; 526905,
3272426; 526783, 3272497; 526472, 3272434; 526435, 3272318; 526460,
3272223; 526443, 3272077; 526356, 3271945; 526158, 3271842; 525997,
3271842; 525854, 3271930; 525762, 3272044; 525703, 3272205; 525729,
3272352; 525802, 3272494; 525890, 3272776; 525876, 3272894; 525858,
3272918; 525912, 3272925; 525904, 3272945; 525903, 3272947; 525903,
3272949;
[[Page 8500]]
525902, 3272950; 525902, 3272952; 525901, 3272954; 525901, 3272956;
525900, 3272957; 525900, 3272959; 525899, 3272961; 525899, 3272963;
525898, 3272965; 525898, 3272966; 525898, 3272968; 525898, 3272970;
525897, 3272972; 525897, 3272974; 525897, 3272975; 525897, 3272977;
525897, 3272979; 525897, 3272981; 525897, 3272983; 525897, 3272985;
525897, 3272986; 525897, 3272988; 525897, 3272990; 525897, 3272992;
525897, 3272994; 525897, 3272996; 525897, 3272997; 525898, 3272999;
525898, 3273001; 525898, 3273003; 525899, 3273005; 525899, 3273007;
525899, 3273008; 525900, 3273010; 525900, 3273012; 525901, 3273014;
525901, 3273015; 525902, 3273017; 525902, 3273019; 525903, 3273021;
525904, 3273022; 525904, 3273024; 525905, 3273026; 525906, 3273027;
525906, 3273029; 525907, 3273031; 525908, 3273032; 525909, 3273034;
525910, 3273036; 525911, 3273037; 525912, 3273039; 525913, 3273040;
525914, 3273042; 525915, 3273044; 525916, 3273045; 525917, 3273047;
525918, 3273048; 525919, 3273049; 525920, 3273051; 525921, 3273052;
525923, 3273054; 525924, 3273055; 525925, 3273056; 525926, 3273058;
525928, 3273059; 525929, 3273060; 525930, 3273062; 525932, 3273063;
525933, 3273064; 525934, 3273065; 525936, 3273066; 525937, 3273068;
525939, 3273069; 525940, 3273070; 525942, 3273071; 525943, 3273072;
525945, 3273073; 525946, 3273074; 525948, 3273075; 525949, 3273076;
525951, 3273077; 525953, 3273078; 525954, 3273078; 525956, 3273079;
525958, 3273080; 526305, 3273293; 526303, 3273302; 526276, 3273412;
526276, 3273412; 526254, 3273499; 526202, 3273564; 526023, 3273523;
525917, 3273448; 525824, 3273382; 525786, 3273440; 525587, 3273259;
525586, 3273260; 525572, 3273363; 525594, 3273505; 525693, 3273659;
525876, 3273765; 526048, 3273798; 526253, 3273754; 526403, 3273634.
(ii) Note: Map 2 of Units 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 1e, and 1f follows:
[[Page 8501]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE12.013
(7) Unit 3: Bexar County, Texas.
(i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 529906, 3272892; 529975,
3272934; 529993, 3272946; 529996, 3272945; 529998, 3272943; 530001,
3272942; 530004, 3272940; 530006, 3272938; 530007, 3272938; 530020,
3272926; 530026, 3272920; 530030, 3272917; 530032, 3272915; 530043,
3272905; 530045, 3272903; 530045, 3272902; 530046, 3272901; 530047,
3272900; 530049, 3272897; 530050, 3272895; 530050, 3272895; 530120,
3272932; 530134, 3272895; 530165, 3272898; 530159, 3272895; 530124,
3272875; 530112, 3272843; 530083, 3272805; 530081, 3272805; 530049,
3272774; 530020, 3272734; 529995, 3272714; 529909, 3272671; 529790,
3272649; 529688, 3272658; 529646, 3272723; 529589, 3272792; 529584,
3272798; 529600, 3272911; 529558, 3272947; 529514, 3272978; 529473,
3272968; 529445, 3273019; 529423, 3273086; 529449, 3273173; 529482,
3273196; 529507, 3273216; 529496, 3273253; 529504, 3273344; 529564,
3273416; 529676, 3273477; 529771, 3273499; 529870, 3273496; 529918,
3273447; 529970, 3273351; 530058, 3273320; 530110, 3273233; 530105,
3273183; 530099, 3273138; 530128, 3273120; 530096, 3273123; 530057,
3273126; 530055, 3273143; 530048, 3273180; 530057, 3273190; 530057,
3273190; 530049, 3273191; 530038, 3273192; 530002, 3273195; 529946,
3273200; 529916, 3273202; 529898, 3273204; 529897, 3273204; 529680,
3273221; 529753, 3273117; 529764, 3273100; 529836, 3272993; 529845,
3272981; 529906, 3272892.
(ii) Note: Map 4 of Units 3 and 4 follows:
[[Page 8502]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE12.014
(8) Unit 5: Bexar County, Texas.
(i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 529536, 3275753; 529533,
3275931; 529585, 3276056; 529741, 3276191; 529927, 3276249; 530112,
3276208; 530275, 3276093; 530350, 3275987; 530318, 3275927; 530238,
3275838; 530169, 3275776; 530109, 3275735; 529970, 3275629; 529950,
3275603; 529936, 3275565; 529781, 3275523; 529719, 3275529; 529621,
3275548; 529566, 3275611; 529536, 3275753.
(ii) Note: Map 5 of Units 5, 6, and 17 follows:
[[Page 8503]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE12.015
Beetle (No Common Name) (Rhadine exilis)
(1) Critical habitat for the beetle (Rhadine exilis) in Bexar
County, Texas, occurs in Units 1b, 1d, 1e, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11e,
12, 13, and 21, and is depicted on Maps 3, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, and 18
in this entry, and on Maps 2, 4, and 5, provided at paragraphs (6),
(7), and (8) of the entry for the Helotes mold beetle in this paragraph
(i). The units are also depicted on Map 1 (index map) provided in
paragraph (5) of the entry for the Helotes mold beetle in this
paragraph (i).
(2) Eight caves and their associated karst management areas
established under the La Cantera Habitat Conservation Plan section
10(a)(1)(B) permit are adjacent to or within the boundaries of Units
1e, 3, 6, 8, and 17, but are not designated as critical habitat. These
caves are Canyon Ranch Pit, Fat Man's Nightmare Cave, Scenic Overlook
Cave and the surrounding approximately 75 ac (30 ha) adjacent to Unit
1e; Helotes Blowhole and Helotes Hilltop Caves and the surrounding
approximately 25 ac (10 ha) adjacent to Unit 3; John Wagner Cave No. 3
and the surrounding approximately 4 ac (1.6 ha) adjacent to Unit 6;
Hills and Dales Pit and the surrounding approximately 70 ac (28 ha)
adjacent to Unit 8; and Madla's Cave and the surrounding approximately
5 ac (2 ha) within Unit 17.
(3) The primary constituent elements of, and the statements
regarding developed lands in, critical habitat for Rhadine exilis are
identical to those set forth at paragraphs (2) and (3) of the entry for
the Helotes mold beetle in this paragraph (i).
(4) Data layers defining map units were created using a geographic
information system (GIS), which included cave locations, karst zone
maps, roads, property boundaries, 2010 aerial photography, and USGS
7.5' quadrangles. Points were placed on the GIS.
[[Page 8504]]
(5) Unit 1b: Bexar County, Texas.
(i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 522172, 3270656; 522202,
3270794; 522259, 3270889; 522375, 3270977; 522521, 3271014; 522677,
3270988; 522793, 3270905; 522880, 3270758; 522894, 3270605; 522843,
3270457; 522724, 3270335; 522571, 3270287; 522401, 3270312; 522280,
3270382; 522186, 3270538; 522172, 3270656.
(ii) Note: Map 2 of Unit 1b is provided at paragraph (6)(ii) of the
entry for the Helotes mold beetle in this paragraph (i).
(6) Unit 1d: Bexar County, Texas.
(i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 524739, 3270323; 524739,
3270454; 524798, 3270590; 524917, 3270699; 525091, 3270744; 525462,
3270937; 525613, 3271016; 525757, 3271026; 525893, 3270977; 526000,
3270883; 526059, 3270741; 526062, 3270603; 525980, 3270370; 525836,
3270243; 525700, 3270206; 525289, 3270072; 525153, 3270020; 525016,
3270023; 524883, 3270092; 524788, 3270191; 524739, 3270323.
(ii) Note: Map 2 of Unit 1d is provided at paragraph (6)(ii) of the
entry for the Helotes mold beetle in this paragraph (i).
(7) Unit 1e: Bexar County, Texas.
(i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 526403, 3273634; 526465,
3273472; 526487, 3273282; 526506, 3273157; 526879, 3273092; 527025,
3273129; 527180, 3273102; 527297, 3273019; 527383, 3272873; 527398,
3272719; 527346, 3272571; 527228, 3272449; 527075, 3272402; 526905,
3272426; 526783, 3272497; 526472, 3272434; 526435, 3272318; 526460,
3272223; 526443, 3272077; 526356, 3271945; 526158, 3271842; 525997,
3271842; 525854, 3271930; 525762, 3272044; 525703, 3272205; 525729,
3272352; 525802, 3272494; 525890, 3272776; 525876, 3272894; 525858,
3272918; 525912, 3272925; 525904, 3272945; 525903, 3272947; 525903,
3272949; 525902, 3272950; 525902, 3272952; 525901, 3272954; 525901,
3272956; 525900, 3272957; 525900, 3272959; 525899, 3272961; 525899,
3272963; 525898, 3272965; 525898, 3272966; 525898, 3272968; 525898,
3272970; 525897, 3272972; 525897, 3272974; 525897, 3272975; 525897,
3272977; 525897, 3272979; 525897, 3272981; 525897, 3272983; 525897,
3272985; 525897, 3272986; 525897, 3272988; 525897, 3272990; 525897,
3272992; 525897, 3272994; 525897, 3272996; 525897, 3272997; 525898,
3272999; 525898, 3273001; 525898, 3273003; 525899, 3273005; 525899,
3273007; 525899, 3273008; 525900, 3273010; 525900, 3273012; 525901,
3273014; 525901, 3273015; 525902, 3273017; 525902, 3273019; 525903,
3273021; 525904, 3273022; 525904, 3273024; 525905, 3273026; 525906,
3273027; 525906, 3273029; 525907, 3273031; 525908, 3273032; 525909,
3273034; 525910, 3273036; 525911, 3273037; 525912, 3273039; 525913,
3273040; 525914, 3273042; 525915, 3273044; 525916, 3273045; 525917,
3273047; 525918, 3273048; 525919, 3273049; 525920, 3273051; 525921,
3273052; 525923, 3273054; 525924, 3273055; 525925, 3273056; 525926,
3273058; 525928, 3273059; 525929, 3273060; 525930, 3273062; 525932,
3273063; 525933, 3273064; 525934, 3273065; 525936, 3273066; 525937,
3273068; 525939, 3273069; 525940, 3273070; 525942, 3273071; 525943,
3273072; 525945, 3273073; 525946, 3273074; 525948, 3273075; 525949,
3273076; 525951, 3273077; 525953, 3273078; 525954, 3273078; 525956,
3273079; 525958, 3273080; 526305, 3273293; 526303, 3273302; 526276,
3273412; 526276, 3273412; 526254, 3273499; 526202, 3273564; 526023,
3273523; 525917, 3273448; 525824, 3273382; 525786, 3273440; 525587,
3273259; 525586, 3273260; 525572, 3273363; 525594, 3273505; 525693,
3273659; 525876, 3273765; 526048, 3273798; 526253, 3273754; 526403,
3273634.
(ii) Note: Map 2 of Unit 1e is provided at paragraph (6)(ii) of the
entry for the Helotes mold beetle in this paragraph (i).
(8) Unit 2: Bexar County, Texas.
(i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 527508, 3276359; 527444,
3276287; 527343, 3276226; 527229, 3276204; 527117, 3276216; 527116,
3276253; 527085, 3276279; 527003, 3276270; 526933, 3276334; 526905,
3276386; 526783, 3276386; 526851, 3276555; 526850, 3276556; 526864,
3276662; 526908, 3276736; 526960, 3276801; 527010, 3276865; 527213,
3277098; 527281, 3277166; 527392, 3277230; 527536, 3277252; 527711,
3277190; 527805, 3277102; 527857, 3277003; 527869, 3276903; 527861,
3276787; 527803, 3276674; 527699, 3276578; 527644, 3276515; 527643,
3276397; 527630, 3276386; 527530, 3276384; 527508, 3276359.
(ii) Note: Map 3 of Unit 2 follows:
[[Page 8505]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE12.016
(9) Unit 3: Bexar County, Texas.
(i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 529583, 3272798; 529599,
3272911; 529557, 3272947; 529513, 3272978; 529473, 3272967; 529445,
3273019; 529422, 3273086; 529448, 3273172; 529481, 3273196; 529507,
3273216; 529496, 3273252; 529503, 3273343; 529563, 3273415; 529676,
3273477; 529771, 3273498; 529870, 3273496; 529917, 3273446; 529970,
3273350; 530057, 3273319; 530110, 3273232; 530104, 3273182; 530099,
3273138; 530147, 3273107; 530178, 3273102; 530182, 3273047; 530190,
3273009; 530208, 3272933; 530211, 3272920; 530159, 3272895; 530123,
3272875; 530112, 3272843; 530083, 3272804; 530081, 3272804; 530049,
3272773; 530020, 3272733; 529995, 3272713; 529909, 3272670; 529790,
3272648; 529687, 3272657; 529646, 3272722; 529588, 3272791; 529583,
3272798.
(ii) Note: Units 3 and 4 are depicted on Map 4, which is provided
at paragraph (7)(ii) of the entry for the Helotes mold beetle in this
paragraph (i).
(10) Unit 4: Bexar County, Texas.
(i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 530856, 3272567; 530829,
3272537; 530779, 3272510; 530734, 3272516; 530717, 3272422; 530676,
3272341; 530620, 3272272; 530531, 3272213; 530417, 3272180; 530271,
3272194; 530240, 3272264; 530185, 3272283; 530180, 3272385; 530234,
3272501; 530209, 3272542; 530206, 3272578; 530217, 3272624; 530247,
3272658; 530294, 3272681; 530349, 3272685; 530367, 3272699; 530396,
3272702; 530448, 3272698; 530442, 3272851; 530447, 3272909; 530473,
3272992; 530595, 3273076; 530685, 3273138; 530683, 3273167; 530640,
3273210; 530578, 3273224; 530471, 3273226; 530441, 3273259; 530396,
3273326; 530369, 3273344; 530362, 3273412;
[[Page 8506]]
530385, 3273503; 530436, 3273540; 530493, 3273576; 530498, 3273608;
530591, 3273684; 530668, 3273720; 530738, 3273733; 530903, 3273657;
530959, 3273526; 530967, 3273452; 530973, 3273424; 531003, 3273401;
531069, 3273343; 531081, 3273277; 531099, 3273245; 531134, 3273194;
531222, 3273176; 531252, 3273111; 531282, 3273015; 531205, 3272961;
531135, 3272916; 531056, 3272822; 530975, 3272780; 530909, 3272689;
530855, 3272599; 530856, 3272567.
(ii) Note: Units 3 and 4 are depicted on Map 4, which is provided
at paragraph (7)(ii) of the entry for the Helotes mold beetle in this
paragraph (i).
(11) Unit 5: Bexar County, Texas.
(i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 529536, 3275753; 529533,
3275931; 529585, 3276056; 529741, 3276191; 529927, 3276249; 530112,
3276208; 530275, 3276093; 530350, 3275987; 530318, 3275927; 530238,
3275838; 530169, 3275776; 530109, 3275735; 529970, 3275629; 529950,
3275603; 529936, 3275565; 529781, 3275523; 529719, 3275529; 529621,
3275548; 529566, 3275611; 529536, 3275753.
(ii) Note: Units 5, 6, and 17 are depicted on Map 5, which is
provided at paragraph (8)(ii) of the entry for the Helotes mold beetle
in this paragraph (i).
(12) Unit 6: Bexar County, Texas.
(i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 531676, 3275515; 531639,
3275342; 531576, 3275302; 531483, 3275283; 531331, 3275337; 531242,
3275350; 531189, 3275346; 531193, 3275501; 531094, 3275501; 531094,
3275378; 531072, 3275398; 530953, 3275478; 530909, 3275521; 530851,
3275661; 530871, 3275702; 530981, 3275903; 531119, 3275970; 531335,
3275950; 531512, 3275851; 531615, 3275701; 531676, 3275515.
(ii) Note: Units 5 and 6 are depicted on Map 5, which is provided
at paragraph (8)(ii) of the entry for the Helotes mold beetle in this
paragraph (i).
(13) Unit 7: Bexar County, Texas.
(i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 531798, 3277694; 531828,
3277832; 531885, 3277927; 532001, 3278016; 532148, 3278053; 532303,
3278026; 532420, 3277943; 532506, 3277797; 532520, 3277643; 532469,
3277495; 532351, 3277373; 532197, 3277326; 532028, 3277350; 531906,
3277421; 531812, 3277576; 531798, 3277694.
(ii) Note: Map 6 of Unit 7 follows:
[[Page 8507]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE12.017
(14) Unit 8: Bexar County, Texas.
(i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 535007, 3274657; 535063,
3274624; 535096, 3274626; 535133, 3274610; 535173, 3274570; 535222,
3274516; 535282, 3274478; 535302, 3274450; 535290, 3274359; 535238,
3274250; 535215, 3274045; 535226, 3273947; 535209, 3273836; 535160,
3273741; 535056, 3273640; 535027, 3273631; 535026, 3273654; 535022,
3273714; 535018, 3273721; 535013, 3273730; 534992, 3273775; 534988,
3273784; 534962, 3273838; 534962, 3273838; 534936, 3273892; 534909,
3273947; 534909, 3273947; 534883, 3274002; 534856, 3274057; 534856,
3274057; 534813, 3274142; 534708, 3274141; 534625, 3274140; 534519,
3274140; 534389, 3274145; 534389, 3274132; 534168, 3274322; 534058,
3274551; 533966, 3274645; 533893, 3274683; 533848, 3274736; 533839,
3274809; 533853, 3274895; 533905, 3274965; 534037, 3275030; 534156,
3275037; 534290, 3274997; 534292, 3274995; 534881, 3274809; 534894,
3274782; 534931, 3274737; 534962, 3274695; 535007, 3274657.
(ii) Note: Map 7 of Unit 8 follows:
[[Page 8508]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE12.018
(15) Unit 9: Bexar County, Texas.
(i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 536971, 3273194; 537058,
3273204; 537958, 3273349; 538025, 3273049; 538011, 3273033; 537743,
3272819; 537663, 3272828; 537645, 3272742; 537602, 3272707; 537551,
3272712; 537500, 3272684; 537412, 3272713; 537309, 3272793; 537213,
3272912; 537167, 3273017; 537121, 3273038; 537084, 3273013; 537008,
3273129; 536943, 3273082; 536897, 3273099; 536879, 3273117; 536871,
3273154; 536887, 3273183; 536971, 3273194.
(ii) Note: Map 8 of Unit 9 follows:
[[Page 8509]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE12.019
(16) Unit 11e: Bexar County, Texas.
(i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 546476, 3280267; 546413,
3280397; 546339, 3280604; 546323, 3280672; 546318, 3280792; 546318,
3280907; 546549, 3280944; 546741, 3280974; 546842, 3280841; 546822,
3280811; 546712, 3280817; 546741, 3280776; 546771, 3280674; 546768,
3280534; 546737, 3280452; 546810, 3280337; 547036, 3280060; 546957,
3280008; 546861, 3280061; 546745, 3280087; 546590, 3280148; 546541,
3280150; 546515, 3280201; 546476, 3280267.
(ii) Note: Map 10 of Unit 11e follows:
[[Page 8510]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE12.020
(17) Unit 12: Bexar County, Texas.
(i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 552033, 3278053; 551928,
3278141; 551834, 3278139; 551807, 3278130; 551766, 3278160; 551687,
3278290; 551673, 3278422; 551692, 3278521; 551714, 3278718; 551702,
3278837; 551730, 3278937; 551771, 3279018; 551835, 3279091; 551959,
3279147; 552097, 3279168; 552239, 3279127; 552334, 3279050; 552409,
3278920; 552425, 3278785; 552399, 3278671; 552385, 3278483; 552385,
3278343; 552354, 3278249; 552300, 3278162; 552188, 3278085; 552105,
3278057; 552033, 3278053.
(ii) Note: Map 11 of Unit 12 follows:
[[Page 8511]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE12.021
(18) Unit 13: Bexar County, Texas.
(i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 555466, 3278873; 555441,
3278986; 555451, 3279067; 555662, 3279064; 555683, 3279069; 555689,
3279087; 556071, 3279116; 556194, 3278972; 556178, 3278730; 556012,
3278573; 555860, 3278513; 555655, 3278520; 555463, 3278576; 555318,
3278702; 555289, 3278762; 555466, 3278873.
(ii) Note: Map 12 of Unit 13 follows:
[[Page 8512]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE12.022
(19) Unit 21: Bexar County, Texas.
(i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 533735, 3278278; 533765,
3278416; 533821, 3278511; 533938, 3278599; 534084, 3278636; 534240,
3278610; 534356, 3278527; 534443, 3278380; 534457, 3278227; 534406,
3278079; 534287, 3277957; 534134, 3277909; 533964, 3277934; 533843,
3278004; 533749, 3278160; 533735, 3278278.
(ii) Note: Map 18 of Unit 21 follows:
[[Page 8513]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE12.023
Beetle (No Common Name) (Rhadine infernalis)
(1) Critical habitat for the beetle (Rhadine infernalis) in Bexar
County, Texas, occurs in Units 1a, 1b, 1d, 1e, 1f, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8,
10a, 10b, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 23, and 26. These units are depicted on
Maps 9, 13, 14, 15, 16, 20, and 22 in this entry; on Maps 2, 4, and 5
provided at paragraphs (6)(ii), (7)(ii), and (8)(ii) of the entry for
the Helotes mold beetle in this paragraph (i); and on Maps 3 and 7
provided at paragraphs (8)(ii) and (14)(ii) of the entry for the beetle
(Rhadine exilis) in this paragraph (i). The units are also depicted on
Map 1 (index map) provided in paragraph (5) of the entry for the
Helotes mold beetle in this paragraph (i).
(2) Eight caves and their associated karst management areas
established under the La Cantera Habitat Conservation Plan section
10(a)(1)(B) permit are adjacent to or within the boundaries of Units
1e, 3, 6, 8, and 17, but are not designated as critical habitat. These
caves are Canyon Ranch Pit, Fat Man's Nightmare Cave, Scenic Overlook
Cave and the surrounding approximately 75 ac (30 ha) adjacent to Unit
1e; Helotes Blowhole and Helotes Hilltop Caves and the surrounding
approximately 25 ac (10 ha) adjacent to Unit 3; John Wagner Cave No. 3
and the surrounding approximately 4 ac (1.6 ha) adjacent to Unit 6;
Hills and Dales Pit and the surrounding approximately 70 ac (28 ha)
adjacent to Unit 8; and Madla's Cave and the surrounding approximately
5 ac (2 ha) within Unit 17.
(3) The primary constituent elements of, and the statements
regarding developed lands in, critical habitat for the Rhadine exilis
are identical to those set forth at paragraphs (2) and (3) of the entry
for the Helotes mold beetle in this paragraph (i).
(4) Data layers defining map units were created using a geographic
information system (GIS), which included cave locations, karst zone
[[Page 8514]]
maps, roads, property boundaries, 2010 aerial photography, and USGS
7.5' quadrangles. Points were placed on the GIS.
(5) Unit 1a: Bexar County, Texas.
(i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 522870, 3272900; 522872,
3273024; 522919, 3273156; 523000, 3273241; 523124, 3273312; 523284,
3273323; 523438, 3273258; 523618, 3273132; 523729, 3273041; 523797,
3272836; 523784, 3272720; 523724, 3272603; 523633, 3272522; 523515,
3272464; 523406, 3272460; 523276, 3272492; 523041, 3272654; 522939,
3272737; 522870, 3272900.
(ii) Note: Map 2 of Unit 1a is provided at paragraph (6)(ii) of the
entry for the Helotes mold beetle in this paragraph (i).
(6) Unit 1b: Bexar County, Texas.
(i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 522172, 3270656; 522202,
3270794; 522259, 3270889; 522375, 3270977; 522521, 3271014; 522677,
3270988; 522793, 3270905; 522880, 3270758; 522894, 3270605; 522843,
3270457; 522724, 3270335; 522571, 3270287; 522401, 3270312; 522280,
3270382; 522186, 3270538; 522172, 3270656
(ii) Note: Map 2 of Unit 1b is provided at paragraph (6)(ii) of the
entry for the Helotes mold beetle in this paragraph (i).
(7) Unit 1d: Bexar County, Texas.
(i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 524739, 3270323; 524739,
3270454; 524798, 3270590; 524917, 3270699; 525091, 3270744; 525462,
3270937; 525613, 3271016; 525757, 3271026; 525893, 3270977; 526000,
3270883; 526059, 3270741; 526062, 3270603; 525980, 3270370; 525836,
3270243; 525700, 3270206; 525289, 3270072; 525153, 3270020; 525016,
3270023; 524883, 3270092; 524788, 3270191; 524739, 3270323.
(ii) Note: Map 2 of Unit 1d is provided at paragraph (6)(ii) of the
entry for the Helotes mold beetle in this paragraph (i).
(8) Unit 1e: Bexar County, Texas.
(i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 526878, 3273091; 527025,
3273128; 527180, 3273102; 527296, 3273019; 527383, 3272872; 527397,
3272719; 527346, 3272571; 527228, 3272449; 527074, 3272401; 526905,
3272426; 526783, 3272496; 526471, 3272434; 526435, 3272317; 526459,
3272223; 526443, 3272076; 526355, 3271944; 526157, 3271842; 525996,
3271842; 525853, 3271930; 525762, 3272043; 525703, 3272205; 525729,
3272351; 525802, 3272494; 525890, 3272776; 525875, 3272893; 525758,
3273054; 525692, 3273095; 525586, 3273259; 525571, 3273362; 525593,
3273505; 525692, 3273659; 525875, 3273765; 526047, 3273798; 526252,
3273754; 526403, 3273633; 526465, 3273472; 526487, 3273281; 526505,
3273157; 526878, 3273091.
(ii) Note: Map 2 of Unit 1e is provided at paragraph (6)(ii) of the
entry for the Helotes mold beetle in this paragraph (i).
(9) Unit 1f: Bexar County, Texas.
(i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 526537, 3271231; 526567,
3271369; 526624, 3271464; 526740, 3271552; 526887, 3271589; 527042,
3271563; 527159, 3271480; 527245, 3271333; 527259, 3271180; 527208,
3271032; 527090, 3270910; 526936, 3270862; 526767, 3270887; 526645,
3270958; 526552, 3271113; 526537, 3271231.
(ii) Note: Map 2 of Unit 1f is provided at paragraph (6)(ii) of the
entry for the Helotes mold beetle in this paragraph (i).
(10) Unit 2: Bexar County, Texas.
(i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 527508, 3276359; 527444,
3276287; 527343, 3276226; 527229, 3276204; 527117, 3276216; 527116,
3276253; 527085, 3276279; 527003, 3276270; 526933, 3276334; 526905,
3276386; 526783, 3276386; 526851, 3276555; 526850, 3276556; 526864,
3276662; 526908, 3276736; 526960, 3276801; 527010, 3276865; 527213,
3277098; 527281, 3277166; 527392, 3277230; 527536, 3277252; 527711,
3277190; 527805, 3277102; 527857, 3277003; 527869, 3276903; 527861,
3276787; 527803, 3276674; 527699, 3276578; 527644, 3276515; 527643,
3276397; 527630, 3276386; 527530, 3276384; 527508, 3276359.
(ii) Note: Map 3 of Unit 2 is provided at paragraph (8)(ii) of the
entry for the beetle (Rhadine exilis) in this paragraph (i).
(11) Unit 3: Bexar County, Texas.
(i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 529583, 3272798; 529599,
3272911; 529557, 3272947; 529513, 3272978; 529473, 3272967; 529445,
3273019; 529422, 3273086; 529448, 3273172; 529481, 3273196; 529507,
3273216; 529496, 3273252; 529503, 3273343; 529563, 3273415; 529676,
3273477; 529771, 3273498; 529870, 3273496; 529917, 3273446; 529970,
3273350; 530057, 3273319; 530110, 3273232; 530104, 3273182; 530099,
3273138; 530147, 3273107; 530178, 3273102; 530182, 3273047; 530190,
3273009; 530208, 3272933; 530211, 3272920; 530159, 3272895; 530123,
3272875; 530112, 3272843; 530083, 3272804; 530081, 3272804; 530049,
3272773; 530020, 3272733; 529995, 3272713; 529909, 3272670; 529790,
3272648; 529687, 3272657; 529646, 3272722; 529588, 3272791; 529583,
3272798.
(ii) Note: Map 4 of Unit 3 is provided at paragraph (7)(ii) of the
entry for the Helotes mold beetle in this paragraph (i).
(12) Unit 4: Bexar County, Texas
(i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 530856, 3272567; 530829,
3272537; 530779, 3272510; 530734, 3272516; 530717, 3272422; 530676,
3272341; 530620, 3272272; 530531, 3272213; 530417, 3272180; 530271,
3272194; 530240, 3272264; 530185, 3272283; 530180, 3272385; 530234,
3272501; 530209, 3272542; 530206, 3272578; 530217, 3272624; 530247,
3272658; 530294, 3272681; 530349, 3272685; 530367, 3272699; 530396,
3272702; 530448, 3272698; 530442, 3272851; 530447, 3272909; 530473,
3272992; 530595, 3273076; 530685, 3273138; 530683, 3273167; 530640,
3273210; 530578, 3273224; 530471, 3273226; 530441, 3273259; 530396,
3273326; 530369, 3273344; 530362, 3273412; 530385, 3273503; 530436,
3273540; 530493, 3273576; 530498, 3273608; 530591, 3273684; 530668,
3273720; 530738, 3273733; 530903, 3273657; 530959, 3273526; 530967,
3273452; 530973, 3273424; 531003, 3273401; 531069, 3273343; 531081,
3273277; 531099, 3273245; 531134, 3273194; 531222, 3273176; 531252,
3273111; 531282, 3273015; 531205, 3272961; 531135, 3272916; 531056,
3272822; 530975, 3272780; 530909, 3272689; 530855, 3272599; 530856,
3272567.
(ii) Note: Map 4 of Unit 4 is provided at paragraph (7)(ii) of the
entry for the Helotes mold beetle in this paragraph (i).
(13) Unit 5: Bexar County, Texas.
(i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 529536, 3275753; 529533,
3275931; 529585, 3276056; 529741, 3276191; 529927, 3276249; 530112,
3276208; 530275, 3276093; 530350, 3275987; 530318, 3275927; 530238,
3275838; 530169, 3275776; 530109, 3275735; 529970, 3275629; 529950,
3275603; 529936, 3275565; 529781, 3275523;
[[Page 8515]]
529719, 3275529; 529621, 3275548; 529566, 3275611; 529536, 3275753.
(ii) Note: Map 5 of Unit 5 is provided at paragraph (8)(ii) of the
entry for the Helotes mold beetle in this paragraph (i).
(14) Unit 6: Bexar County, Texas.
(i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 531676, 3275515; 531639,
3275342; 531576, 3275302; 531483, 3275283; 531331, 3275337; 531242,
3275350; 531189, 3275346; 531193, 3275501; 531094, 3275501; 531094,
3275378; 531072, 3275398; 530953, 3275478; 530909, 3275521; 530851,
3275661; 530871, 3275702; 530981, 3275903; 531119, 3275970; 531335,
3275950; 531512, 3275851; 531615, 3275701; 531676, 3275515.
(ii) Note: Map 5 of Unit 6 is provided at paragraph (8)(ii) of the
entry for the Helotes mold beetle in this paragraph (i).
(15) Unit 8: Bexar County, Texas.
(i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 535007, 3274657; 535063,
3274624; 535096, 3274626; 535133, 3274610; 535173, 3274570; 535222,
3274516; 535282, 3274478; 535302, 3274450; 535290, 3274359; 535238,
3274250; 535215, 3274045; 535226, 3273947; 535209, 3273836; 535160,
3273741; 535056, 3273640; 535027, 3273631; 535026, 3273654; 535022,
3273714; 535018, 3273721; 535013, 3273730; 534992, 3273775; 534988,
3273784; 534962, 3273838; 534962, 3273838; 534936, 3273892; 534909,
3273947; 534909, 3273947; 534883, 3274002; 534856, 3274057; 534856,
3274057; 534813, 3274142; 534708, 3274141; 534625, 3274140; 534519,
3274140; 534389, 3274145; 534389, 3274132; 534168, 3274322; 534058,
3274551; 533966, 3274645; 533893, 3274683; 533848, 3274736; 533839,
3274809; 533853, 3274895; 533905, 3274965; 534037, 3275030; 534156,
3275037; 534290, 3274997; 534292, 3274995; 534881, 3274809; 534894,
3274782; 534931, 3274737; 534962, 3274695; 535007, 3274657.
(ii) Note: Map 7 of Unit 8 is provided at paragraph (14)(ii) of the
entry for the beetle (Rhadine exilis) in this paragraph (i).
(16) Unit 10a: Bexar County, Texas.
(i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 540276, 3277443; 540255,
3277399; 540189, 3277302; 540076, 3277233; 539945, 3277214; 539851,
3277226; 539717, 3277295; 539645, 3277377; 539617, 3277449; 539650,
3277471; 539750, 3277551; 539905, 3277551; 540276, 3277443.
(ii) Note: Map 9 of Units 10a and 10b follows:
[[Page 8516]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE12.024
(17) Unit 10b: Bexar County, Texas.
(i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 540684, 3277399; 541377,
3277406; 541368, 3277355; 541302, 3277258; 541180, 3277158; 541037,
3277126; 540890, 3277155; 540777, 3277226; 540702, 3277336; 540684,
3277399.
(ii) Note: Map 9 of Unit 10b is provided at paragraph (16)(ii) of
this entry.
(18) Unit 14: Bexar County, Texas.
(i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 520081, 3258642; 520207,
3258774; 520339, 3258764; 520542, 3258723; 520744, 3258618; 520822,
3258502; 520847, 3258327; 521047, 3257873; 521048, 3257838; 521005,
3257658; 520885, 3257494; 520710, 3257405; 520503, 3257379; 520290,
3257468; 520158, 3257609; 520006, 3257810; 519891, 3257965; 519848,
3258183; 519911, 3258441; 520081, 3258642.
(ii) Note: Map 13 of Unit 14 follows:
[[Page 8517]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE12.025
(19) Unit 15: Bexar County, Texas.
(i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 522689, 3256455; 522687,
3256517; 522703, 3256601; 522765, 3256718; 522911, 3256823; 523046,
3256851; 523177, 3256830; 523344, 3256801; 523479, 3256747; 523658,
3256674; 523725, 3256656; 523834, 3256603; 523918, 3256523; 523969,
3256419; 523978, 3256293; 523885, 3256159; 523885, 3256069; 523822,
3256015; 523674, 3255915; 523547, 3255873; 523414, 3255874; 523281,
3255933; 523201, 3256024; 523017, 3256131; 522987, 3256149; 522940,
3256160; 522894, 3256168; 522869, 3256174; 522790, 3256246; 522722,
3256345; 522689, 3256455.
(ii) Note: Map 14 of Unit 15 follows:
[[Page 8518]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE12.026
(20) Unit 16: Bexar County, Texas.
(i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 527412, 3258337; 527348,
3258534; 527379, 3258716; 527456, 3258844; 527623, 3258959; 527815,
3258972; 527925, 3258857; 527933, 3258697; 527971, 3258605; 527986,
3258452; 527934, 3258303; 527925, 3258186; 527663, 3258134; 527498,
3258173; 527412, 3258337.
(ii) Note: Map 15 of Unit 16 follows:
[[Page 8519]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE12.027
(21) Unit 17: Bexar County, Texas.
(i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 528980, 3275191; 529043,
3275247; 529120, 3275242; 529245, 3275219; 529327, 3275184; 529348,
3275167; 529492, 3275167; 529613, 3275113; 529800, 3275081; 529870,
3274953; 529819, 3274777; 529698, 3274627; 529486, 3274528; 529360,
3274615; 529335, 3274712; 529174, 3274840; 528968, 3274859; 528957,
3275049; 528980, 3275191.
(ii) Not including land within and bounded by the following UTM
Zone 14N, North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N):
529490, 3275008; 529490, 3275006; 529490, 3275005; 529490, 3275003;
529490, 3275002; 529489, 3275001; 529489, 3274999; 529489, 3274998;
529489, 3274997; 529489, 3274995; 529489, 3274994; 529488, 3274993;
529488, 3274992; 529489, 3274991; 529489, 3274986; 529489, 3274983;
529489, 3274982; 529482, 3274919; 529329, 3274930; 529337, 3274993;
529337, 3274993; 529337, 3274994; 529336, 3274995; 529337, 3274997;
529337, 3274998; 529336, 3274999; 529336, 3275001; 529336, 3275002;
529336, 3275003; 529336, 3275005; 529336, 3275006; 529336, 3275008;
529336, 3275009; 529336, 3275010; 529336, 3275012; 529336, 3275013;
529336, 3275014; 529336, 3275016; 529337, 3275017; 529337, 3275018;
529337, 3275020; 529337, 3275021; 529337, 3275022; 529338, 3275023;
529338, 3275025; 529338, 3275026; 529339, 3275027; 529339, 3275029;
529339, 3275030; 529340, 3275031; 529340, 3275033; 529341, 3275034;
529341, 3275035; 529342, 3275036; 529342, 3275038; 529343, 3275039;
529343, 3275040; 529344, 3275041; 529344, 3275042; 529345, 3275044;
529346, 3275045; 529346, 3275046; 529347, 3275047; 529348, 3275048;
529348, 3275049; 529349, 3275050; 529350, 3275052; 529351, 3275053;
529351,
[[Page 8520]]
3275054; 529352, 3275055; 529353, 3275056; 529354, 3275057; 529355,
3275058; 529356, 3275059; 529357, 3275060; 529358, 3275061; 529359,
3275062; 529359, 3275063; 529360, 3275064; 529361, 3275065; 529362,
3275066; 529363, 3275066; 529364, 3275067; 529366, 3275068; 529367,
3275069; 529368, 3275070; 529369, 3275070; 529370, 3275071; 529371,
3275072; 529372, 3275073; 529373, 3275073; 529374, 3275074; 529376,
3275075; 529377, 3275075; 529378, 3275076; 529379, 3275077; 529380,
3275077; 529382, 3275078; 529383, 3275078; 529384, 3275079; 529385,
3275079; 529387, 3275080; 529388, 3275080; 529389, 3275081; 529390,
3275081; 529392, 3275081; 529393, 3275082; 529394, 3275082; 529396,
3275082; 529397, 3275083; 529398, 3275083; 529399, 3275083; 529401,
3275083; 529402, 3275084; 529403, 3275084; 529405, 3275084; 529406,
3275084; 529407, 3275084; 529409, 3275084; 529410, 3275084; 529412,
3275084; 529413, 3275084; 529414, 3275084; 529416, 3275084; 529417,
3275084; 529418, 3275084; 529420, 3275084; 529421, 3275084; 529422,
3275084; 529424, 3275084; 529425, 3275083; 529426, 3275083; 529428,
3275083; 529429, 3275083; 529430, 3275082; 529431, 3275082; 529433,
3275082; 529434, 3275081; 529435, 3275081; 529437, 3275081; 529438,
3275080; 529439, 3275080; 529440, 3275079; 529442, 3275079; 529443,
3275078; 529444, 3275078; 529445, 3275077; 529447, 3275077; 529448,
3275076; 529449, 3275075; 529450, 3275075; 529451, 3275074; 529452,
3275073; 529454, 3275073; 529455, 3275072; 529456, 3275071; 529457,
3275070; 529458, 3275070; 529459, 3275069; 529460, 3275068; 529461,
3275067; 529462, 3275066; 529463, 3275066; 529464, 3275065; 529465,
3275064; 529466, 3275063; 529467, 3275062; 529468, 3275061; 529469,
3275060; 529470, 3275059; 529471, 3275058; 529472, 3275057; 529473,
3275056; 529473, 3275055; 529474, 3275054; 529475, 3275053; 529476,
3275052; 529477, 3275050; 529477, 3275049; 529478, 3275048; 529479,
3275047; 529479, 3275046; 529480, 3275045; 529481, 3275044; 529481,
3275042; 529482, 3275041; 529482, 3275040; 529483, 3275039; 529484,
3275038; 529484, 3275036; 529485, 3275035; 529485, 3275034; 529486,
3275033; 529486, 3275031; 529486, 3275030; 529487, 3275029; 529487,
3275027; 529487, 3275026; 529488, 3275025; 529488, 3275023; 529488,
3275022; 529489, 3275021; 529489, 3275020; 529489, 3275018; 529489,
3275017; 529489, 3275016; 529489, 3275014; 529490, 3275013; 529490,
3275012; 529490, 3275010; 529490, 3275009; 529490, 3275008.
(iii) Note: Map 5 of Unit 17 is provided at paragraph (8)(ii) of
the entry for the Helotes mold beetle in this paragraph (i).
(22) Unit 19: Bexar County, Texas.
(i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 548980, 3276370; 549011,
3276172; 548992, 3276167; 549001, 3276139; 548992, 3276099; 548960,
3276076; 548867, 3276071; 548767, 3276012; 548725, 3276018; 548608,
3276046; 548499, 3276055; 548429, 3275955; 548326, 3275856; 548274,
3276042; 548285, 3276194; 548374, 3276384; 548503, 3276497; 548601,
3276538; 548815, 3276541; 548963, 3276489; 548980, 3276370.
(ii) Note: Map 16 of Unit 19 follows:
[[Page 8521]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE12.028
(23) Unit 23: Bexar County, Texas.
(i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 535851, 3276414; 535640,
3276401; 535639, 3276467; 535670, 3276630; 535613, 3276734; 535616,
3276844; 535568, 3276883; 535433, 3276912; 535314, 3277003; 535342,
3277121; 535427, 3277203; 535617, 3277255; 535763, 3277242; 535884,
3277190; 536017, 3277082; 536080, 3276928; 536088, 3276708; 536003,
3276539; 535851, 3276414.
(ii) Note: Map 20 of Unit 23 follows:
[[Page 8522]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE12.029
(24) Unit 26: Bexar County, Texas.
(i) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 14N, North American
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates (E, N): 520192, 3257071; 520300,
3257163; 520493, 3257203; 520672, 3257162; 520816, 3257024; 520870,
3256906; 520901, 3256737; 520865, 3256567; 520821, 3256487; 520710,
3256440; 520638, 3256540; 520556, 3256555; 520490, 3256557; 520363,
3256547; 520290, 3256566; 520195, 3256648; 520166, 3256776; 520200,
3256878; 520268, 3256943; 520228, 3257000; 520192, 3257071.
(ii) Note: Map 21 of Unit 26 follows:
[[Page 8523]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR14FE12.030
* * * * *
Dated: January 24, 2012.
Rachel Jacobson,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2012-2195 Filed 2-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C